Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill.

Central London and Metropolitan District Railway Companies Bill.

Bills committed.

Brighton Corporation Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 25th March.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Whitehills Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

DESTITUTE SEAMEN (REPATRIATION).

Mr. LUMLEY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if legislation is contemplated by the present Government to
deal with the repatriation of destitute seamen who are natives of British tropical Dependencies?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The question of repatriating destitute Colonial seamen from the United Kingdom has engaged a great deal of attention since the War, and such action as was possible has been taken by the Departments concerned with useful results. Legislation will probably be necessary in order to deal comprehensively with this question, and the matter is being considered, but it is not possible to make any statement at present as to the introduction of legislation.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with his colleague, the Colonial Secretary, and deal with this very long-outstanding grievance from the Colonial point of view, and will he do his best to ensure that the necessary legislation, which could be quite short, shall be introduced this Session, if possible?

Mr. WEBB: I should certainly be glad to continue the conversations which have no doubt been taking place for some years between right hon. Gentlemen, and if anything can be done to quicken them up I will do my best, but it is impossible to hold out any hope of legislation this Session.

S.S. "BERENGARIA."

Mr. MILLS: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his inspecting staff have reported the condition of s.s. "Berengaria"; whether he is aware that it is reported that this vessel has a defective rudder-post; and, in view of possible danger, will he insist upon strict inspection?

Mr. WEBB: The Board's survey staff at Southampton were fully aware of the slight damage which was sustained by the rudder of the "Berengaria" in August, 1922, and are satisfied that it does not in any way affect the efficiency or safety of the vessel.

Captain BERKELEY: If there be a structural defect in the ship, surely it ought to be remedied at once.

Mr. WEBB: I have not said that there is any structural defect, but that the rudder had sustained some slight damage.
The ship has since been proceeding on voyages, and the Board's surveyors are satisfied.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these huge passenger-carrying liners are usually re-conditioned by no fewer than 800 mechanics, and that there is a possible danger that in view of the present trade dispute these vessels may go out of port again without that re-conditioning?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these matters are very carefully supervised by Lloyd's surveyors, who have to do with these ships and whose interests, with the interests of the owners, is quite as great as that of the hon. Member?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that very often ships are surveyed and go under what are called temporary repairs, leaving the permanent repairs to be carried out later?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to answer that question.

OVERHAULING SURVEY.

Mr. MILLS: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, as a result of a trade dispute in Southampton, mail steamers and great passenger-carrying vessels which require overhauling on every trip are not coming under the strict survey conditions as laid down in regulations: and will he take steps to prevent these vessels leaving dock in a defective condition?

Mr. WEBB: There is no foundation for the suggestion that the survey regulations are being relaxed in consequence of the trade dispute at Southampton.

SHIP REPAIRS (DUTCH BOUNTY).

Mr. WALTER RAINE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that orders for repairs to British steamers are being obtained by Dutch ship repairers through a bounty of 30 per cent. of the wages bill being granted by the Dutch Government in conjunction with the municipalities in which the said works are situated: that, were it not for this 30 per cent. bounty granted on foreign orders, the British prices would be
cheaper; and what steps does he propose to take to counteract this unfair trading, which helps to keep up the numbers of unemployed in this country?

Mr. WEBB: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of Labour to the hon. Member for Faversham on the 21st February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE.

MATCHES MONOPOLY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the abolition of the State match monopoly in France; and whether in its sale to private enterprise the British companies will be allowed to tender?

Mr. WEBB: The suppression of the State match monopoly is provided for in the Bill now before the French Legislature for the improvement of the French financial situation. The French Minister of Finance has stated that it is not intended to entrust a monopoly to a concessionary company, but that it is proposed that the manufacture should be unrestricted, subject only to an excise duty. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

TOBACCO MONOPOLY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the abolition of the State tobacco monopoly in France; and whether in its sale to private enterprise British companies will be allowed to tender?

Mr. WEBB: I understand that the French Government do not propose to abolish the State tobacco monopoly, but only to introduce certain improvements calculated to increase its yield.

DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of the French Debt to Great Britain, and in what currency is it to be paid?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The total War Debt is £622,896,458, of which £614,482,000 is payable in sterling and the remainder in American dollars.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ITALIAN SILK GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. REMER: 4 and 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the value of the imports of silk manufactured goods, including embroidery and apparel, from Italy during 1923; and what is the hourly wage paid to the Italian silk worker; and how many hours were worked per week during the same period;
(2) what is the value of the imports of silk manufactured goods, including embroidery and apparel, from France during 1923; what is the average hourly wage paid to the French silk workers; and how many hours were worked per week during the same period?

Mr. WEBB: The answers are rather long, and, if the hon. Member will allow me, I will have them circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they may be ready.

STEEL (BRITISH-AMERICAN PRODUCTION).

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as a result of successes obtained by American steel manufacturers in Australian markets, a Commissioner was appointed by the Board of Trade to examine the whole question of British and American steel manufacture and export; and, if so, whether he has made his report?

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Reports have from time to time been received from His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in Australia on the question of the competition of American steel with British steel in the Australian market, and these have been brought to the attention of the interests conceraed. A Commissioner has not, however, been specially appointed to examine the whole question of British and American steel manufacture and export.

STATISTICS.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total annual value and volume of the export and import trade of the British
Empire and the United States of America, respectively, during 1922 and the two years preceding?

Mr. WEBB: The compilation of the statistics relating to the various countries of the Empire has been put in hand, but it will be some days before it can be completed. I will then have the figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The statistics do not enable the total volume, as distinct from value, to be stated.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the home trade of the United Kingdom and also that of the United States of America for the last three years for which figures are available?

Mr. WEBB: I regret that the necessary information with regard to the volume of the internal trade is not available, either for this country or the United States.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: In view of the fact that this census of production cannot be taken probably for some years, would it be possible to make the nearest possible estimate based upon the ratio at the time of the last census?

Mr. WEBB: I am afraid I do not quite understand. It might be possible to make some sort of estimate of the production of the country, but that has no relation to the trade of the country, because you cannot tell how many times a certain product is turned over.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON GOODS.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN EXPORTS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the export of cotton goods of Great Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, both in respect of value and volume, in 1913 and 1922, respectively?

Mr. WEBB: The answer contains a statistical table, and perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the exports of cotton manufactures from the countries named during the years 1913 and 1922, distinguishing, so far as the original data permit, cotton piece goods and other manufactures of cotton.

—
1913.
1922.


United Kingdom.





Cotton Piece Goods
Yds.
7,075,252,000
4,312,667,000*



£
97,776,000
142,437,000


Other Cotton Manufactures
£
13,685,000
18,009,000


United States.





Cotton Piece Goods
Sq. Yds.
Not recorded.
587,493,000



Yds.
466,677,000
Not recorded.



$
32,257,000
85,232,000


Other Cotton Manufactures
$
10,858,000
19,168,000


France.





Cotton Piece Goods
100 Kilogs.
462,064
379,865



Francs
206,690,000
896,521,000


Other Cotton Manufactures
Francs
145,930,000
209,431,000


Germany.





Cotton Piece Goods
100 Kilogs.
441,597
177,047



Marks
186,049,000
Not available.



100 Kilogs.
57,481
30,000


Other Cotton Manufactures
Marks
94,402,000
Not available.


Italy.





Cotton Piece Goods
100 Kilogs.
492,215
300,309



Lire
188,200,000
950,408,000


Other Cotton Manufactures
Lire
14,337,000
26,465,000


Belgium.





Cotton Tissues
100 Kilogs.
280,190
144,933



Francs
80,402,000
214,389,000


Cotton Ribbons, Tulle and Passementerie
Francs
5,095,000
8,121,000


* The weight of these goods was 7,266,655 cwts., and the number 4,183,729,100 of square yards.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR IMPORT DUTIES (FRANCE, GERMANY, UNITED STATES).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the rate of duty at the present time on imports of raw sugar into the countries of France, Germany, and the United States of America?

Mr. WEBB: I have had a detailed statement prepared, and, with the permission of the hon. Member, will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORATION.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of chemists employed in research work by the British Dyestuffs Corporation?

Mr. WEBB: I am informed by the British Dyestuffs Corporation that the number of chemists in the employ of the Corporation engaged on research is 51.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether he can make any further statement about the proposed amalgamation between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the Interessen Gemeinschaft of Germany; and, in the event of the amalgamation taking place, what steps will be taken to preserve the interests of the other British dyestuffs manufacturers?

Mr. WEBB: I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this-matter. If and when any definitive agreement between the companies mentioned is put forward full consideration will be given to all the interests likely to be affected by it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR CROP.

Mr. LUMLEY: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the world's sugar crop he estimates to be grown outside the British Empire?

Mr. WEBB: No official statistics are available; but those compiled by a New York firm, Messrs. Willett & Gray, show, for the year 1923–24, an estimated production of cane and beet sugar, in
countries outside the British Empire, amounting to 14,867,127 tons, or 78.8 per cent. of the estimated world production.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for preliminary discussions between himself and representatives of firms and companies previously operating in Russia for the purpose of enabling them to forward their views in connection with their various trades and industries in the interest of a settlement of their different classes of claim at the forthcoming Anglo-Russian Conference?

Mr. WEBB: I am in touch with the interests referred to by the hon. Member, and any views which they may put forward will certainly be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the greater part of the petrol used in this country comes from the United States, that consumption in the latter country is enormously increasing, and that there are grave doubts as to the supply keeping up with the demand and consequent increase in price, he is able to state whether the Government is prepared to adopt energetic methods to help in ensuring an adequate production of motor spirit in these islands?

Mr. WEBB: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Springburn on 12th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a great opportunity to alleviate unemployment by using British capital in British enterprise?

Mr. WEBB: I am afraid that hardly arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONEYLENDERS' CIRCULARS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to make advertising and the distribution of circulars by moneylenders illegal?

Mr. WEBB: The question to which the hon. and gallant Member has drawn attention shall receive careful consideration when legislation is introduced to amend the Moneylenders Acts, but it will not be possible to introduce such legislation at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MAJOR-GENERAL D. SHAW.

Mr. BECKER: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the case of Major-General D. Shaw, who, whilst general-officer commanding the Karachi brigade, was made responsible for the Karachi troop train incident during the summer of 1916?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India regrets that he is unable to reopen this question, which has been very fully examined by his predecessors. General Shaw was offered a fresh inquiry, but found himself unable to accept the offer.

Mr. BECKER: I do not want to raise this question at length—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] He was a serving officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Mr. THURTLE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question—

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not allow the supplementary question to be put.

PHARMACISTS.

Mr. G. WHITE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now arrange for the publication of the Report of the Committee appointed to make recommendations with regard to the employment of pharmacists in the Army, and the provision, distribution, and dispensing of medical and surgical supplies in peace and war?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Stephen Walsh): I am not at present aware of any general desire that this Report should be published; but if I am satisfied that this is the general wish of the House, I will take the question into further consideration.

MEAT CONTEACTS.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a contract of £50,000 for meat given to a foreign firm, any tenders were received from Australia; and whether any preference is given to the Dominions in such cases such as is given by Australia to this country?

Mr. WALSH: The hon. and gallant Member is probably referring to a contract for preserved meat recently placed with a firm of Argentine packers. Two offers for Australian preserved meat were received on that occasion, but the lowest of them was over 35 per cent. in excess of the Argentine quotation. I regret that the prices quoted by Australian packers were too high to admit of their acceptance.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Australia gives us a preference of 45 per cent. in many cases and that it would be a great advantage to this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Might I ask if the quality is the same?

Mr. LAMB: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made on behalf of the Australian Commonwealth in respect to the placing in foreign countries of contracts for the supply of meat for His Majesty's Forces; and whether he will consider the desirability of at once confining all future contracts to fresh meat of home production and, when it is necessary to purchase supplies of frozen and chilled meat, to obtain such supplies from Dominion sources?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): In answer to the first part of the question, I am glad to say that no complaint has been received from the Commonwealth Government on this matter. As regards the latter part I regret that in view of the very large extra cost involved it would not be possible to confine future contracts to fresh meat of home production. All recent Army contracts for frozen meat have provided for supplies of Dominion origin, but no undertaking can be given to purchase Dominion
meat exclusively in future irrespective of cost. Chilled meat is not bought for the Army.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has not the Secretary for War just stated that the contract has been given to the Argentine?

Mr. LAWSON: Yes, it is true that a contract has been made with the Argentine, but that is not contradictory of my answer.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the hon. Gentleman maintaining the preference which has hitherto been given by the War Office in these contracts?

Mr. VIVIAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of recommending the Government of Australia to follow the precedent which has just been announced in to-day's papers as regards Canada, and relieve the agriculturists of Australia from the onerous burden of Protection, so that they can compete with the Argentine?

SANDHURST AND WOOLWICH (ADMISSION).

Mr. FINNEY: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to put in operation the findings of the Haldane inquiry as to the means of democratising the methods of admission to the military academies of Sandhurst and Woolwich?

Mr. WALSH: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member has in mind. About 5 per cent. of the Cadets are selected on the nomination of headmasters, and about 2 per cent. are nominated by the Department as King's Cadets, i.e., sons of officers killed in action or otherwise deserving. Otherwise the only method of admission is that of open competition. The recommendations of Lord Haldane's Committee have been generally accepted by the Army Council and steps are being taken to embody them in regulations. At Sandhurst, 15 cadetships a term are being reserved for candidates from the ranks, and there are a number of such cadets at Sandhurst now.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Are those military competitions open to the rank and file of the Army?

Mr. WALSH: It is very difficult to say that. I can only answer the question
submitted, but I think that I ought to say that, as a result of the Haldane Committee, a great many secondary schools will have these things thrown open to them, and this will have the effect of bringing about the democratisation desired.

SMALL-POX.

Mr. SULLIVAN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many cases of and deaths from small-pox occurred amongst British troops during each year of the War in each of the important areas in which the troops were serving, and how many of such cases and deaths occurred amongst doctors, nurses, and other persons in attendance on small-pox cases?

Mr. WALSH: I regret that I am not in a position to give this information. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Consett on 26th February.

TROOPS (DISPOSITION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many British troops are stationed at home and how many abroad; how many of these latter are on territory outside the British Empire, not counting the Army of Occupation in Germany; and how many Indian troops are employed outside India?

Mr. WALSH: According to the latest return the number of British troops is 111,039 at home and 102,893 abroad, including India. In addition there are 3,140 Indian and Colonial troops serving under the War Office. Of these numbers 12,100 are in Egypt and 3,190 in the Middle East and in North China. There are also approximately 8,460 Indian troops outside India serving under the Air Ministry, the Foreign Office or Colonial Governments.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Middle East in this case mean Iraq or does it include places outside it?

Mr. WALSH: Iraq mainly, but taking in some of the undefined and almost un-definable territory which adjoins it. I could give the exact line if my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

ARMY ORGANISATION.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to make a statement as to whether the Army is being organized purely for Home defence, being trained with a view to possible intervention on the Continent, or are colonial wars only being envisaged?

Mr. WALSH: I can make the statement at once. The British Army is being organised, now as before, with a view to the military defence of the Empire, wherever the necessity for action may unhappily arise.

ECONOMIES (LORD WEIR'S COMMITTEE).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the decisions of the Army Council with reference to the Report of Lord Weir's Committee on Establishments; and whether the economies recommended by the Report have been accepted?

Mr. WALSH: Some of the recomendations have been accepted, and the resultant economies are reflected in the Estimates for next year. Others are still under discussion. I will endeavour to give the House further information on the subject in the course of the Debate on Army Estimates.

Mr. MONTAGUE: On a point of Order. I thought that last week it was agreed that only two questions were to be asked by each hon. Member?

Mr. SPEAKER: That was not decided.

MECHANICAL WARFARE.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War when he will be in a position to make a statement concerning the advances, if any, in methods of mechanical warfare adopted in the Army since the War; and whether a reorganisation of the Army is in contemplation with a view to saving man power by developing fire power?

Mr. WALSH: Advances in the direction of utilising improved mechanical devices are being made, and the subject is under constant consideration and experiment with a view to further improvement.

BALTIC STATES MISSION.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the personnel
of the proposed commission to visit the Baltic States has yet been decided upon?

Mr. WALSH: The reply is in the negative. It has not yet been decided whether the Mission will be sent, and the whole matter remains under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRETNA.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that there is much suffering and discontent in and around Gretna due to unemployment, high and inequitable rents, vacant houses, and homeless people; and whether he is taking any steps to get rid of these anomalies?

Mr. CLARKE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it is the intention of the Government to allow the factory at Gretna to be put up to auction, as proposed by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, in view of a Government Commission having previously recommended that the Gretna factory should be retained; and is he aware that if the power house is scrapped or disposed of the houses and other buildings will be deprived of the electric light and require to resort to oil?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the answers that I have already given on this subject, but in response to representations made to me I am making further inquiries in the matter. I would add that the power house was designed to supply power and light to this large factory as a whole, and its retention for the sole purpose of supplying light to the tenants of the houses would obviously be impracticable. It is hoped that at the auction to be held in June next, certain portions of the factory still equipped with fixed plant, etc., suitable for ordinary purposes will attract buyers. In these circumstances, a decision as to the disposal of the power house has necessarily had to be postponed.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether he might not set up a committee to deal with the minor matter, not as to the sale of the factory, but with regard to the empty houses and the repair of those houses and the satisfying
of the demand for those houses? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Mr. GRAHAM: I have that matter under consideration at the present time, and hope to give a reply without delay.

Mr. HARDIE: Have the Government any idea of using, instead of selling, the plant at the present establishment at Gretna Green?

Mr. GRAHAM: There would be great difficulty attached to that proposal. AD effort was made to sell the concern as a whole, but only a very small offer was received. It was then decided to try to sell it in lots, and a further effort will be made in May or June next.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the hon. Gentleman considered, not the selling of the factory, but rather its retention, as there are thousands of things which we might do with these works of which there is no idea on the Front Bench?

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (STAFF DIRECTORATE).

Mr. G. WHITE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War the reason why the staff of the Territorial Army Directorate has increased from 15, costing £4,980 in 1914–16, to 25, costing £12,752, in the current year?

Mr. WALSH: I would explain that the staff of the Territorial Army Directorate (including certain staff serving in other Directorates but employed on Territorial Army work) was, in 1914, 22 (three of which were part-time appointments) at a total cost of £6,710. During the War part of the work performed by the Territorial Army Directorate was transferred with four clerks (costing £445) to the Military Secretary, but other staff has now been transferred to the Directorate from other Departments. The present staff is 24 and will be reduced to 22 by 1st April, 1924. The increase in cost is due to the following causes:

First: Increase of work due to the reorganisation of the Territorial Army, as the second line to the Regular Army.
Second: The increased rates of pay authorised by Parliament since 1914.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number at present on the staff of the War Office and the total salaries for the year 1923–24, together with the corresponding figures for 1914–15?

Mr. WALSH: The figures are for 1914–15: 1,590, at a cost of £390,000. For 1923–24: 2,606, at a cost of £921,000.

Mr. HOGGE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 21 pensioned civil servants, with pensions ranging from £450 per annum, are engaged as temporary clerks in his Department; and whether, in view of the serious unemployment amongst ex-service men, he will take immediate steps to secure the discontinuance of this practice?

Mr. WALSH: I am aware of the employment of these ex-officials, but their pensions range from £175 to £401 a year only, and not from £450. They are engaged on the responsible duty of examining War Office records and papers and deciding which should be retained and which can safely be destroyed. This is a very special class of work for which the long experience of the staff concerned peculiarly qualifies them, and which could not suitably be entrusted to ex-service men with a limited knowledge of War Office work. I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that no other men can do the work on which these men are engaged in examining those papers? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support the policy of retaining in the War Office these men with large pensions when men who have fought want jobs and cannot get them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has answered the question.

Mr. WALSH: Both the ex-service men, and the British Legion, which specially represents ex-service men, have had this matter under consideration and have endorsed the attitude I have adopted.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of personal explanation, may I say that, although the Secretary of State for War states that
his action is endorsed by the British Legion and the Ex-Service Men's Association, yet this question was put down at their request.

HOLIDAYS.

Mr. HOGGE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that permanent civil servants in almost every case are granted consider ably longer holidays and yet work shorter hours than temporary civil servants doing approximately the same work, and in view of the additional advantages in the way of pay, superannuation, and pension rights held by the permanent civil servants, he will take steps to get rid of this anomaly?

Mr. GRAHAM: While the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that permanent civil servants in almost every case are granted considerably longer holidays, and yet work shorter hours than temporary civil servants doing approximately the same work, it is the case that in general the permanent staff are eligible for longer holidays. In view of the different conditions of service and of recruitment it would be difficult to agree that the terms of employment of permanent and temporary civil servants should necessarily be identical in this respect.

RETIRING AGE.

Mr. HOGGE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many permanent civil servants have passed the retiring age of 60 and are still being retained; and whether, in view of the large number of ex-service men unemployed on the books of the Joint Substitution Board, he will take immediate steps to ensure the resignation of all permanent officials over 60 years of age, in order to create vacancies throughout the civil service?

Mr. GRAHAM: Information is not readily available as to the number of permanent civil servants who have passed the age of 60 and are still serving. The age for compulsory retirement in the Civil Service, as laid down in Clause 15 of the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1910, is not 60, but 65 years, though it is competent for the head of any Department to call upon any officer of such Department to retire at any time after reaching the age of 60 on such pension
as he is qualified by length of service to receive. I do not think it would in the interests either of efficiency or economy, nor would it be equitable, to fetter the discretion of heads of Departments in the manner suggested in the latter part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a simplified form of return for Income Tax assessments is to be issued in April, 1924; whether such form is the result of any recommendation made to the Committee appointed in December, 1922, to inquire into the question of the simplification of Income Tax forms; and whether the Report of the Committee, which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on the 21st January, 1924, was being printed, is now ready for issue?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I am informed that the issue of the Report in question may be expected almost immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS (REDUCED CHARGES).

Mr. ERNEST SIMON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the greatly enhanced prices of Government publications, very few libraries can now provide full sets of such documents, easy access to which is of great importance to many sections of the public; and whether he is prepared to make a substantial reduction in the prices or to give specially favourable terms to public libraries?

Mr. ALDEN: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received an appeal from the council of the Library Association on the subject of the distribution and cost of Parliamentary publications; and whether, in view of the importance of such publications to industrial workers and students of sociology, he will consider the advisability of reducing the annual subscription from £38 to the former annual payment of £22, which was the price fixed prior to the year 1918?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will answer these questions together. My right hon. Friend has had the appeal under consideration and has decided, in lieu of the existing arrangements under which a few publications are presented annually to some Public Libraries, other supplies being charged at full price, to authorise the Stationery Office to supply any Government publication in future at half the published price, or half the subscription price for a class of publications, as desired. This arrangement will apply to all public free libraries in Great Britain maintained out of the rates and the offer is also extended to universities and university colleges in receipt of assistance from the University Grants Committee. In all cases the supply is subject to the condition that the publications are not to be resold.

Mr. MILLS: Is there any possibility of the Financial Secretary including in that scheme libraries maintained by workmen?

Mr. GRAHAM: I must ask for time to consider that question. At the moment we feel that it is a very large concession which we have made. We will take the hon. Member's suggestion into consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: In view of the concession just announced, does the hon Gentleman expect anyone to buy the publications at the full price, and will not the resulting decrease in sales cause difficulties?

Mr. GRAHAM: All the considerations were reviewed, but my right hon. Friend thought that a case had been made out for a cheaper supply on the lines suggested, in order to meet the needs of students and others.

Mr. ALDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade as to the form in which these Blue-hooks might appear?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUGAR-BEET.

Mr. BRISCOE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement to the effect that the present advantages given to English-grown sugar shall be maintained, having regard to the
fact that growers of sugar-beet in this country are anxious to have the position made clear before entering into contracts?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — JERSEY (IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER).

Mr. MARLEY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Island of Jersey costs the Imperial Exchequer per annum?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The gross annual expenditure in the island by the Imperial Exchequer is about £195,000, but £48,000 of this represents the cost of War pensions. £9,200 is spent on the Militia, and £137,000 represents the cost of the regular garrison stationed in the island. The remainder (less than £1,000) represents an estimate of the cost falling on various other Departments of State. I am informed that only a very small saving would be effected on Army Votes if the garrison were removed. On the other side of the account there are receipts averaging about £900 a year, representing the surplus of Crown revenues derived from dues, sales of land, etc., after deducting the necessary expenditure on administration.

Mr. MARLEY: Does that include the grants made by the Charity Commissioners?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It includes all the expenses which fall upon the Imperial Exchequer?

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all this Imperial expenditure is forced on the island, and is not asked for or wanted?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Gentleman appears to be better informed than I am on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. E. BROWN: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue obtained through the instrumentality of the Entertainments Duty in 1922–23 from charges of admission not exceeding 2s.?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Exact information is not available, but the yield of the Entertainments
Duty from payments for admission (excluding the duty) not exceeding 2s. is estimated at about £8,200,000.

Mr. HUGHES: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to furnish a Return showing the yield of the Entertainments Duty when the payment for admission is 2½d., 4d., is., 2s., 3s., 5s., 7s. 6d., 10s. 6d., and 15s., respectively, for the year ending 31st March, 1923?

Mr. SNOWDEN: A considerable part of the Entertainments Duty is collected by means of the sale of Entertainments Duty Stamps at the several rates of duty. As the stamps of each value are appropriate to a range of payments for admission and there is no information as to the price or prices of the admission tickets for which such stamps are required, it is impossible to give the particulars asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING DUTY (GOVERNMENT DECISION).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have taken into consideration the Report of the Select Committee on Betting Duty; and, if so, whether it is proposed to impose such a duty?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Government have carefully considered the Report of the Select Committee, and after reviewing the question of imposing a betting duty in all its aspects, they have come to the conclusion that it would be against the public interest to make the changes in the law that would be involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated value of the deliveries either in cash or kind by Germany to Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, respectively, on account of reparations and cost of military occupation since the date when France entered the Ruhr up to the end of 1923?

Mr. SNOWDEN: As the answer is a long one, and contains numerous figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.

Following is the answer:

1. No cash payments were made by the German Government on reparation account during 1923, beyond the payment of the six months Treasury Bills issued to the Belgian Government in respect of the last five-monthly payments for 1922, which fell due during 1923.

2. The deliveries in kind made, by the German Government to Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, respectively, which have been notified to the Reparation Commission during 1923, were as follows:





million gold marks.


Great Britain
…
…
156


France
…
…
14


Belgium
…
…
5


Italy
…
…
123


Total
…
…
298


(say £14,900,000)

3. In addition, the German Government issued paper marks to the various Armies of Occupation on requisition to the following amounts:





million gold marks.


Great Britain
…
…
16.0


France
…
…
8.0


Belgium
…
…
0.2


Total
…
…
24.2


(say £1,210,000)


The issue of paper marks by the German Government to the French and Belgian Armies on requisition was suspended from the beginning of the Ruhr occupation until December, 1923.

4. No figures have been reported to the Reparation Commission or communicated to the British Government by the French and Belgian Governments as regards the value of the seizures and confiscations effected in the Rhineland and the Ruhr, and no sum has been brought to account by the Reparation Commission in respect of such seizures.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large sum obtained from Germany under the reparation levy and the fact that the rate of the levy has been reduced from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent., the Government has retained the right of reimposing any larger duty when opportunity offers; and, if not, what is the reason for this decision?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the agreement as regards the reduction of the levy has effect only until 15th April, 1924. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the price of goods imported into this country from Germany will be reduced to the same amount as the reparation duty?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I must refer the hon. Member to an answer given last week to a similar question.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: The right hon. Gentleman says the last consideration does not arise. Has the right hon. Gentleman then more consideration for the pockets of the Germans than of our own people?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue as a White Paper the verbal or written diplomatic representations which led to the agreement to reduce the reparation levy from 26 per cent. to 5 per cent. as published in the Board of Trade Journal on 29th February?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The negotiations were conducted orally, and it is therefore impossible to issue as a White Paper the representations which led to the conclusion of the agreement.

Mr. SAMUEL: 63.
further asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which account all or part of the £18,000,000 received for reparation levy has been credited; and whether the credit has been treated as revenue, and for which year or years, or has the money been held in suspense account?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements showing the amounts received during the years ending 31st March, 1922, and 31st March, 1923, respectively, and the application thereof which have been presented to Parliament (Command Papers 1664 and 1861). A similar statement as regards the year ending 31st March, 1924, will be presented to Parliament in due course. The credit is treated as revenue, under the heading of Miscellaneous Revenue, except in so far as it appears as Appropriations-in-Aid of Army Votes for the cost of Armies of Occupation.

Mr. SAMUEL: Do I understand that this money has been and is to be treated as revenue, and does not this mean that the general body of taxpayers will henceforth subsidise the import merchants by the amount of the surrendered 21 per cent.?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The taxpayer will benefit, under the arrangement which we made last week, by the difference between the nothing that has been paid since September and the 5 per cent.

Mr. SAMUEL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that Thursday has been appointed for the discussion of this question.

Mr. SAMUEL: 64.
also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, during the negotiations about reduction of Reparation Levy, any proposal was made by the British Government to the German authorities that reduction of Reparation Levy should be met by reduction of German Customs duties on British imports into Germany?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative. As the hon. Member is aware, Germany is prohibited by Article 264 of the Treaty of Versailles from reducing Customs duties on British imports without granting identical reductions on the imports of the other Allies.

Mr. SAMUEL: What objection would there have been to granting similar facilities to other Allies?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is evidently suffering from a mental illusion. He appears to be under the impression that this Reparation Act has something to do with Protection. It has nothing at all to do with Protection, and so long as I am responsible for its administration, it will not be used as an instrument of Protection.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: In what period or at what date will the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, expire?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I could not at this moment state.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate
has been prepared of the cost of giving old age pensions to all at the age of 65 years; and, if so, what the cost would be?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the means disqualification were abolished, it is estimated that the cost of old age pensions, at the existing rate given at the age of 65, would be £73,000,000 a year (instead of £24,000,000 a year as at present). The figure would automatically increase owing to the increasing longevity of pensioners.

Sir F. HALL: Do the Government anticipate giving this grant in the near future?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the Debate on the question last week.

Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report of the speech of the Secretary of State for War at Burnley last week in which that promise is made?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL DEBT (INQUIRY).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of the expert Commissioners who are to inquire into the best way of dealing with the burden of the National Debt?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce the names. The constitution of the Committee is nearly complete, but as I explained previously, there has been an unavoidable delay in getting into touch with some of the persons I have invited to serve.

Mr. BECKER: Will this Committee consider the Capital Levy as a means of reducing debt?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The terms of reference to the Committee have already been announced in this House, and if they have escaped the observation of the hon. Member I shall be glad to send him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-PRISON OFFICER (J. J. BENNETT).

Mr. HAYES: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will
see that ex-Prison Officer J. J. Bennett, Pentonville Prison, is not deprived of the benefits of the Superannuation Act, 1919, seeing that he held a pensionable office from 14th January, 1918, to 30th June, 1920?

Mr. GRAHAM: This case was decided by the Treasury two years ago on the basis of the law and Regulations affecting the grant of pensions, and a pension under the Superannuation Act, 1919, was refused because Mr. Bennett was not regarded as holding a pensionable office at the time of his retirement. No new facts are given in the hon. Member's question which would enable me to revise the Treasury decision, but if he will send me a full statement of the case as it presents itself to him, I will look into the matter.

Mr. HAYES: As a point of law is involved, will the hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member submits the full statement suggested, we may be able to review this decision. I cannot give a pledge as to that, but I think there is a case for re-consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEED MARKING BRANCH (WELSH LANGUAGE).

Mr. OWEN: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a document written in the Welsh language and submitted for stamping toy the trustees of Jerusalem Chapel, Garn Dolbenmaen, Carnarvonshire, to the Inland Revenue Office, Carnarvon, has been returned unstamped from the Deed Marking Branch, Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House, London, with a request to furnish a translation thereof; and whether he will make arrangements at Somerset House for the attendance of an official competent to deal with documents in the Welsh language?

Mr. GRAHAM: I was not aware of the particular case to which the hon. Member refers. Arrangements have now been made under which in future any necessary translation of documents in Welsh which are presented for stamping will be made in the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (ANCIENT MONUMENTS COMMISSION)

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in providing work for the unemployed, the opportunity will be taken to place funds at the disposal of the Ancient Monuments Commission for the excavation of ancient monuments in Great Britain?

Mr. GRAHAM: The function of the Ancient Monuments Commission is to make an inventory of ancient and historical monuments and to specify those most worthy of preservation. It does not include the work of excavation. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that a considerable amount of work to relieve unemployment is being undertaken in connection with the ancient, monuments supervised by the First Commissioner of Works.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Would it not be a wise thing to have this method of excavation carried out in order to discover a new policy for hon. Members on the benches opposite?

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, OFFICIAL REPORT (PRICE).

Mr. ATHOLL ROBERTSON: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the comparatively brief reports of Parliamentary proceedings in the Press, he can see his way to reduce the daily charge for Parliamentary Debates to 3d.?

Mr. GRAHAM: Under the arrangements set out in my answer to-day to the hon. Members for the Withington and South Tottenham Divisions, public libraries, universities, etc., will in future be able to obtain the Parliamentary Debates at 3d. a copy. The experience that has been gained by the reduction of the price from 1s. to 6d. makes it clear that a general reduction to 3d. would greatly increase the considerable loss already falling on public funds in respect of this publication, and in present circumstances I cannot see my way to agree to it.

Mr. FOOT: Will the Treasury have regard to the directions given by a Committee of this House as far back as 1836, that the Reports of Parliament should be made available for the public at prices within their reach?

Sir J. NALL: Has the Treasury obtained tenders for the printing of these Papers, with a view to producing them at the lowest possible price?

Mr. BECKER: Have the public shown any desire to read these Debates?

Captain Viscount EDNAM: Did the Publications and Debates Committee recommend last year that the price of this publication should be reduced to sixpence?

Mr. GRAHAM: With reference to the supplementary questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall) and the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam), I should require notice. As regards the Report of the Committee which dates back to 1835, that obviously requires research.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SALMON FISHERY ACTS.

Dr. CHAPPLE: 70.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to present a Bill to Parliament dealing with the question of amending and consolidating the existing Salmon Fishery Acts?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I take a considerable personal interest in this question, but; looking to the Government's heavy legislative programme, I can give no undertaking with regard to such a Bill at present.

SEED OATS AND POTATOES.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 71.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the proposed contribution by the Board of Agriculture towards the cost of seed oats and potatoes to the smallholders in the Highlands of Scotland will only amount to about 7 per cent. of the purchase price per quarter; and whether he will reconsider the amount of the grant, in view of the inability of many of the smallholders to find the remaining 93 per cent. of the purchase price of the necessary seed?

Mr. ADAMSON: I think the hon. and gallant Baronet is under a misapprehension in supposing that the contribution originally proposed would have represented
only about 7 per cent. of the cost of the seed. As, however, I announced in the House on Thursday last, it has been decided to increase substantially the amount of assistance originally proposed. The terms on which the seed oats and seed potatoes will be supplied will shortly be announced.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what counties he includes under the term "Highlands"?

Mr. ADAMSON: I will leave that to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what case there is for giving facilities to people in the Highlands that are not given to equally deserving cases elsewhere?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 72.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the assistance of the Board of Agriculture in the purchase of seed oats and potatoes will be available for all farmers, irrespective of the size of their holdings?

Mr. ADAMSON: The assistance will be available for necessitous small landholders, crofters and cottars in the seven crofting counties. It will not be available for farmers whose holdings exceed the limits prescribed for small holdings in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911.

SCHOOL CLASSES (SIZE).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 73.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of classes in Scottish schools with more than 60 pupils, and the number of classes with from 50 to 60 pupils?

Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot give the figures for which my hon. Friend asks, without calling on the education authorities for a special return.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to issue instructions that there shall be no class with over 60 pupils in it?

Mr. ADAMSON: If my hon. Friend wishes for such a return as he asks for in the question, I will do my best to get it.

TEACHERS' TRAINING (REGULATIONS).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 74.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if the new Regulations
for the training of teachers in Scotland are now prepared; and, if so, will they be placed upon the Table of this House, and will they be available for Members?

Mr. ADAMSON: The reply is in the affirmative. A draft was issued a fortnight ago to education authorities and other bodies interested. As soon as there has been time to consider any observations or suggestions that may reach me, the Regulations, either in their present or in an amended form, will be placed upon the Table and will be available for Members.

MORAY FIRTH (SEINE NET FISHING).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 75.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what steps he has taken to carry out the recommendations of the Trawling Committee regarding the closing of the Moray Firth to seine-net fishing, and the improving of the policing of the Firth?

Mr. ADAMSON: Seine-net fishing is now prohibited within the three-mile limit in the Moray Firth. As regards the waters of the Moray Firth outside the three-mile limit, I would remind the right hon. Member that legislation would be required to provide for the prohibition or restriction of seine-net fishing, or any-other method of fishing which is proved to be injurious, and that the Trawling Committee's Report contemplated that such legislation should be contingent on international agreements relating to the Moray Firth and other areas in the North Sea. I am examining the difficult questions which are involved in these proposals. With regard to the policing of the Moray Firth, I am in communication with the Admiralty with a view to ascertaining whether a faster and more efficient Admiralty vessel can be made available.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In his reply the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was going to ask the Admiralty if they could not get a faster cruiser. Has the advisability of employing a seaplane in this duty instead of a vessel never dawned on his Department?

Mr. ADAMSON: The suggestion that has been made by my hon. Friend will receive consideration.

BURSARY SCHEME (STIRLINGSHIRE).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 76.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the
Stirlingshire education authority has fixed a maximum of £300 as the income beyond which no maintenance grant will be paid to assist in educating children of parents with incomes beyond the foregoing maximum; and if, seeing that, in view of Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, education authorities cannot fix any maximum without inquiring into the whole circumstances of every applicant, he will state what action he proposes to take to enforce authorities to comply with Section 4 of the foregoing Act?

Mr. ADAMSON: If my hon. Friend refers to the education authority's bursary scheme, he will find that the figure he names is not an absolute maximum, and that the authority have reserved the fullest discretion to disregard it on good cause shown.

VETERINARY COLLEGES (GRANTS).

Mr. SULLIVAN: 77.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will reconsider the proposal to take away the veterinary college from Glasgow, and also the proposal to reduce the grant at present payable to it.

Mr. WILLIAM MARTIN: 79.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the Scottish Board of Agriculture has in its recent allocations granted £3,500 to the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College and only £100 to the Glasgow Veterinary College, and that this discrimination between these two colleges has created a feeling of discontent in agricultural circles; and if he will take steps to bring the grants more to an equality?

Mr. ADAMSON: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton. Division (Mr. Maxton) on Tuesday last.

Mr. MAXTON: The answer given to the hon. Member for Bridgeton was that a Committee was inquiring into the whole question of agricultural education in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the persons in Glasgow interested in agricultural and veterinary education will have an opportunity of placing evidence before that Committee?

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes, Sir.

LISTER WARD, GLASGOW INFIRMARY.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 78.
asked the Secretary far Scotland whether, in view of the great interest and value of the Lister Ward in the Royal Infirmary of Glasgow, and the strong pleas for its preservation received from all over the world, he will consider the advisability of taking immediate means to ensure that demolition will not be begun until an inquiry can be made?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no authority to intervene in this matter.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in such honour is this ward held that the blocks have been advertised in the "Glasgow Herald" for Saturday; is he not aware that the material of this ward has been advertised for sale, and that in such honour is it held that the Royal Academy of Medicine in London has secured one of the fireplaces in this ward; and is he not of opinion that if it is so valuable as to be wanted by the Royal Academy of Medicine, it should be retained in Scotland?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Should not the Scottish Office regard this ward as really a national monument to a great benefactor of mankind?

Mr. ADAMSON: The point is that I have no authority to intervene in this matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And you are the Secretary for Scotland!

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. SPENCE: 80.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of small holdings taken over at East Fortune, East Lothian; and whether there is more land available for the said purpose?

Mr. ADAMSON: The land in question has not yet been formally acquired by the Board of Agriculture, but negotiations are far advanced, and the Board are managing the property in anticipation of completion of the purchase. The scheme embraces all the lands attached to the aerodrome at East Fortune which have not already been sold, and extend to 609 acres, on which it is hoped to settle 20 holders.

Mr. SPENCE: 81.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will amend the instruction given to the Board of Agriculture in 1921 to make it permissible for heads of families with small capital and whose sons, ex-service men, are resident with them to acquire a small holding?

Mr. ADAMSON: The instruction in question has been interpreted so that if an ex-service man who applied for a holding before 1st March, 1921, is willing to withdraw his application from the Board's lists in favour of his father, the Board are prepared to consider the settlement of the latter.

Mr. CLIMIE: 82.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the smallholders at Collennan, Troon, Ayrshire, have made application to the Land Court to have their holdings valued, and that some of the smallholders have been in occupation for three years and do not yet know the rent they have to pay for their holdings; that a representative of the Board of Agriculture made a promise that the Court would visit Collennan in August last, and that the Court was in Ayr on 23rd February, 1924, but has not yet visited Collennan; and will he now take steps to get the Court to visit Collennan without delay?

Mr. ADAMSON: I understand that the lodgment with the Land Court of the application for valuation of holdings at Collennan, Troon, Ayrshire, has been delayed pending the completion of building and other works on certain of the holdings. From date of entry the smallholders have been charged rents fixed by the Board of Agriculture, and it has been made clear to the holders that, as the valuations of the Land Court will be effective as from dates to be fixed by the Court, the holders will not be prejudiced by any delay in completing the Court proceedings. The Board are unaware of any promise made by one of their representatives to the effect that the Court would visit Collennan in August last. The Board anticipate that the application will be lodged with the Court within a fortnight, and it is hoped that the Court's hearing and inspection will take place shortly thereafter.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 84.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of applications made to the Land Courts
by small landholders in Scotland for revaluation of their buildings and revision of their rents, and the total reductions made by the Courts up to the present date?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that in connection with 19 schemes of land settlement the Board of Agriculture, with the concurrence of 285 holders concerned, have requested the Land Court to value the buildings and (in the case of the Board's estates) to fix fair rents. The Court have issued awards in respect of 14 schemes, with the following effect: The annual liabilities for buildings have been reduced from £4,493 to £2,844; and fair rents from £5,669 to £5,067.

AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. MILLAR: 83.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of agricultural co-operative societies in Scotland and their total present membership and working capital?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that the number of agricultural co-operative societies registered in Scotland under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts is 222. These societies have a total membership of 14,000, and their total working capital amounts to approximately £384,800.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

INFLAMMABLE GAS.

Mr. GRUNDY: 88.
asked the Secretary for Mines when he proposes to amend, by legislation or Regulation, Section 67 of the Mines Act, so that no person may be employed in an atmosphere containing 2½ per cent. or upwards of inflammable gas, in accordance with the recommendation of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines in the Maltby Inquiry Report?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I am carefully considering these recommendations, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

SUBSIDENCE (COMMISSION).

Mr. WILLIAM WATSON: 89.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is yet in a position to give the names of the new members of the Commission on Subsidence,
and if he has appointed a chairman to that body?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am not yet in a position to announce the name of the new chairman, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Mr. Enoch Morrell have been invited to fill the vacancies caused by the resignation of my right hon. Friends the Secretary for Scotland and the Postmaster-General, and have consented to do so.

Major WHELER: Will the name of the chairman be available before the next meeting, in a few days, of the Committee?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am having some difficulty with reference to the appointment of a new chairman, but I hope to be able to make an announcement very shortly.

WELFARE SCHEMES.

Mr. BATEY: 90.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid into the welfare scheme and the total amount paid out for approved schemes; and how many of the approved schemes include pit-head baths?

Mr. SHINWELL: The total amount paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund, together with interest on investments, amounted at the 29th February, 1924, to £2,608,180 0s. 6d. The total amounts actually paid out at that date for approved schemes were £837,779 10s. 6d, from District Funds, and £60,372 12s. 2d. from the General Fund, but the total amounts allocated to such schemes were about £1,570,500 and £86,500 respectively The number of approved schemes which include pit-head baths is eight.

Mr. G. SPENCER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the amount allocated to research work, and how much of it has been paid?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid I shall require notice of that question; but I can tell my hon. Friend how much was earmarked. The amount was £500,000. That, however, has not been definitely allocated.

PRICES (LONDON).

Mr. WINDSOR: 91.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information as to the intention of the London coal merchants to increase the price of coal
to the consumer by 2s. per ton; and, if so, whether he proposes to take action on the matter?

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes Sir; I believe the increase has already been made. The matter is not one in which Parliament has given me any power of effective action. The general question whether Parliament should be asked to grant such powers is one which, in my opinion, ought to be considered, and I propose to go into it.

Mr. WINDSOR: Will the hon. Gentleman's Department consider the advisability of hanging a few of these exploiters?

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAVESEND-TILBURY TUNNEL.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: 92.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Kent County Council urging the construction of a tunnel under the Thames between Gravesend and Tilbury; and whether he can give favourable consideration to this scheme?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): My attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Kent County Council. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Dartford, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to ask as to the best method to adopt to obtain a verbal answer from the Postmaster-General. I have made inquiries, and find that Tuesday is his day for answering questions; but I notice on the Order Paper to-day that the first question to the Postmaster-General is No. 98. Are there any means available for hon. Members to get a verbal answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have said before, the arrangement of questions does not come within my province. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make representations through the usual channels, I am sure the matter will be attended to. The only suggestion I have to make is that Ministers who have long replies to
questions should circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, instead of reading them to the House, especially if those answers contain a number of figures. But question time is, I think, improving.

Major COLFOX: Can I take it that any questions to the Postmaster-General which are down for to-day, and which are postponed till to-morrow will be answered to-morrow? [HON. MEMBERS: No!"]

Mr. BECKER: Could we have a little longer time for questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter fixed by the Standing Order.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

COAST EROSION.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the loss of land in this country caused by the process of coast erosion, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Savery.]

AGRICULTURE.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the state of the agricultural industry with special reference to corn growing in Great Britain and to move a Resolution.—[Major Wheler.]

CAPITAL LEVY.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the anomalies and injustices of a capital levy, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir E. Iliffe.]

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (AMENDMENT).

Mr. REMER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act in respect of goods made under conditions not allowed by trades union or by law in Great Britain.
This is a Bill dealing with the Safe guarding of Industries Act, and it may be divided into two parts. The first part deals with key industries, and the second part with depreciated exchanges. The Bill which I ask leave to introduce deals with Part II of that Act, and it desires to allow restriction of imports of manufactured goods on two grounds. The first ground on which it is desired to amend the Act is if the goods
are manufactured under conditions contrary to trade union regulations. There is much evidence that goods are imported into this country made under conditions which would not be tolerated for one moment by the trades unions of this country. I understand that in Germany there is in existence a 60 hours' week. I also understand from information which I have received, after visiting many manufactories on the Continent last autumn, that the conditions under which many of these factories work are of such a nature that no trade union leader would tolerate them for a moment. I went through a factory on the Continent where the hours of; labour worked were 60 hours a week, and the average wage paid was 3s. per day. I went through a cotton mill on the Continent last year where the hours of labour were 60 hours per week, and the average wage less than 3s. per day. From both those factories goods are coming at the present moment to this country to the displacement of British labour.
I am informed that in France, Belgium and Italy, the wages paid to the workers in those countries are about half of those we pay to the workers in those particular trades in this country. In Belgium a cotton doubling plant has recently been erected with British capital by British manufacturers, which is now employing a thousand workmen. The products of that mill are coming into Lancashire and into this country. The same manufacturer has works in Stockport and Bolton lying idle, and utterly unemployed, the reason being that the wages in Belgium are just about half those which are demanded by the trades unions of this country.
The second ground upon which this Bill is based is the laying of restrictions on imports of foreign manufactured goods, that is, where the goods are manufactured under conditions which are not allowed by the law of this country. There are four main grounds for this proposal. The first is the factory laws of this country, which restrict the hours and conditions of labour, guarding machinery, and other conditions. The second ground is that we have here the Workmen's Compensation Act providing for payment to workers disabled through their employment. The third ground is National Health Insurance, under which employers
in this country are forced to make contributions to the workers for insurance, and to guard against ill-health. The fourth is Unemployment Insurance, under which employers are forced to pay contributions to the workers' insurance against being out of work. All these proper and beneficial laws are a very serious charge on the manufacturers of this country. Quite recently I had a discussion on this subject with one of the largest engineers of this country, and he told me that the cost of the charges which I have enumerated came to £10,000 per annum, and was equal to the whole amount which was payable by this firm on the whole of their preference capital, and would have paid the whole of their preference dividends in any one year. I contend that it is most unfair to have competition against this firm by foreign firms who have not to meet these charges.
I would specially like to make an appeal to the Government not only to ask them to give support to me in order that this Bill shall have a First Reading, but I hope they will be able to fix an early date for its discussion on the Second Reading, and I trust they will give facilities for the Bill to pass quickly through all its stages in this House. I have special reason for making this appeal because the Home Secretary, during the recent election at Burnley, and several hon. Members during the last General Election, made references to many of the points which I have raised, and they said this was an international question which should be settled by the League of Nations sitting as an international tribunal.
I was surprised, in reply to a question which I put to the Minister of Labour, to find that the adoption of British trade union conditions is a question which has not yet even been proposed before the League of Nations. The Minister of Labour asked me in his answer to make suggestions, and my suggestions are contained in the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce this afternoon. I was also very surprised to hear from the answer given to me by the Minister of Labour that unemployment insurance is in existence as a compulsory measure in only four countries in the world outside our own, and that national health insurance id only compulsory in 15 countries outside our own. I confidently appeal to the House to give me permission
to introduce this Bill, which I am sure will have a very beneficial effect upon the working people of this country.

Mr. MOSLEY: In the few minutes at my disposal I cannot do better, in combating this Bill, than to remind the hon. Member who has introduced it of the opinion of his own leader upon this subject, as expressed at the recent Election. Few people will deny that labour conditions in other countries are inimical to the high standard of labour in this country, but the question is whether the remedy proposed by the hon. Member is the right one, or whether the contrary remedy proposed long ago from these benches, and which has always been opposed by hon. Members opposite is prefer able. Is an extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act a proper remedy for this situation? What did the hon. Member's own leader say about that? He said:
No partial Measures, such as the extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, can meet the situation.
Before the last Election the late Prime Minister had in his power these instruments which the hon. Member now seeks to extend. He had the power, and he was able to extend the provisions of that Act, but what did he say in, this House on the 13th November last? He said:
I have reached certain definite conclusions. This is not the occasion, I think, to say what those conclusions are, but I became so convinced that the conclusions I had arrived at were right that I could not have undertaken to remain in my present position and to attempt to steer the country through the winter of 1924–25 unless I were allowed to use an instrument which I could not use, having regard to the pledge given a year ago by Mr. Bonar Law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1923; col. 39, Vol. 168.]
In other words, the instrument which he had in his hand he declared was quite useless for the purpose, and he had to seek another instrument. Now the hon. Member opposite comes forward and asks to be allowed to use the instrument which was previously discarded as useless. It is quite true that the Conservative party have since abandoned the policy, without the application of which they said they could not be responsible for governing the country, and in so doing they have abdicated any claim to solve our difficulties or to govern the country,
because if they do not intend to apply their one remedy, by which alone they could govern, how can they expect the country to entrust them with government? But what evidence have we that even hon. Members opposite have been re-converted to the Safeguarding of Industries policy since the last Election? It is true the right hon. Gentleman opposite recently recommended that policy to the electors of Burnley, but, as he ingenuously admitted at the beginning of his letter, he was then angling for the Liberal vote, and, as we know, even the most honest men become flexible in the exigencies of bye-elections, and these demi-gods of uprightness on such occasions assume a few of our human weaknesses. What other evidence have we that hon. Members opposite have abandoned the policy in which they believe, in favour of a policy in which a few months before they did not believe? The country was told at a recent meeting of the Conservative party that that party had decided, for the present, to abandon that great principle—that they thought it wise and advisable to do so. Why was it advisable? It has not been explained whether it was wise in the interests of the country, or only wise in the interests of a party. If it were wise in the interests of the country, then they admit conversion to Free Trade since the General Election. If, on the other hand, it is only wise in the interests of a party, then they admit they abandon the principle, which they believe to be essential to the welfare of the country, in order to snatch a party advantage.
Really, before they come forward and ask us to believe that even they have been genuinely reconverted to the Safeguarding of Industries policy, they should resolve a few of the dilemmas of argument which confront them. What would have happened in the past if every party had run away from its policy because it found it to be unpopular with the electors? Should we have peace with Ireland to-day, or any of the great reforms on the Statute Book which at present ameliorate the lot of the people of this country? It is a strange policy for a great party to abandon a principle in which it does believe, in favour of a policy in which it confesses it does not believe, because it finds it necessary for electoral purposes. What is the real
remedy for the situation the hon. Member described? It is a remedy against which hon. Members opposite have consistently voted. It was brought forward in this House in 1921 for ratification under the Washington Convention, and hon. Members opposite turned round on their own delegates at that Convention and refused to ratify it. The result has been that other countries have been released from the shackles of fair competition, and our labour is faced with conditions of sweated labour in other countries which are unfair. But that is the fault of hon. Members opposite for repudiating the great Convention to which they set their signature, and the remedy lies in the hands of my hon. Friends in progressing with legislation of an international character with regard to labour conditions.
Notwithstanding that, does anyone really believe that labour, well-fed and well-educated, as labour in this country should be, is incapable, with efficient machinery at its disposal, of competing successfully with half-starved labour? The real problem which confronts us is the dislocation of markets and the

fluctuation of exchange, which has been brought about by hon. Members opposite through a feeble and vacillating foreign policy. That is the old Conservative policy. They have faced all these problems in the same spirit for the last few years. The remedy lies in a strong, firm and decisive foreign policy, such as has been so well initiated by the present Prime Minister. Let me say, in conclusion, that it is, indeed, welcome to observe from the benches opposite the admission of a fact which they have always previously denied, that the degradation, suffering and misery of other people react upon our own people, and, therefore, may we not look to them in the future for support for a policy which reverses their policy, and treats the world as an economic unit?

Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Safeguarding of Industries Act in respect of goods made under conditions not allowed by trades unions or by Law in Great Britain."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 228.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[4.8 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lane-Fox, George R.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Austin, Sir Herbert
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ednam, viscount
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Becker, Harry
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray
Lorimer, H. D.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lumley, L. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lyle, Sir Leonard


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean, Major A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gates, Percy
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Meller, R. J.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Gretton, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Burman, J. B.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison-Bell. Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harland, A.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Clayton, G. C.
Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, Northrn.)
Perring, William George


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Philipson, Mabel


Cope, Major William
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pielou, D. P.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Huntingfield, Lord
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Ralne, W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Remnant, Sir James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rentoul, G. S.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanley, Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ropner, Major L.
Steel, Samuel Strang
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wise, Sir Fredric


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sutcliffe, T.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wragg, Herbert


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Turton, Edmund Russborough



Smith-Carrington, Neville W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Waddington, R.
Mr. Remer and Mr. Hannon.


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Grundy, T. W.
Mond, H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Montague, Frederick


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morel, E. D.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Alden, Percy
Harris, Percy A.
Morse, W. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Moulton, Major Fletcher


Alstead, R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Murray, Robert


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Haycock, A. W.
Murrell, Frank


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G.


Baker, W. J.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Paling, W.


Barnes, A.
Hillary, A. E.
Palmer, E. T.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hirst, G. H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Batey, Joseph
Hobhouse, A. L.
Perry, S. F.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hodges, Frank
Phillipps, Vivian


Black, J. W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Pilkington, R. R.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hogge, James Myles
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bonwick, A.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Potts, John S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Isaacs, G. A.
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Briant, Frank
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Rea, W. Russell


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richards, R.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Jewson, Dorothea
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Brunner, Sir J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Buckie, J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Robertson, T. A.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Royce, William Stapleton


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Scrymgeour, E.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Clarke, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Climie, R.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kedward, R. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Keens, T.
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Crittall, V. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Simpson, J. Hope


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kirkwood, D.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lansbury, George
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Dodds, S. R.
Laverack, F. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Law, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dukes, C.
Lawson, John James
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Duncan, C.
Leach, W.
Spence, R.


Dunn, J. Freeman
Lee, F.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Dunnico, H.
Linfield, F. C.
Stamford, T. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Livingstone, A. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Loverseed, J. F.
Sunlight, J.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Egan, W. H.
Lunn, William
Tattersall, J. L.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
McCrae, Sir George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Finney, V. H.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thomson, Walter T. (Middlesbro, W.)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Foot, Isaac
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thurtle, E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tillett, Benjamin


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Maden, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Tout, W. J.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Marley, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. E.)
Turner, Ben


Gorman, William
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gosling, Harry
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Viant, S. P.


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Maxton, James
Vivian, H.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Middleton, G.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Millar, J. D.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mills, J. E.
Warne, G. H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)




Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wignall, James
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Wintringham, Margaret


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Weir, L. M.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)
Wright, W.


Westwood, J.
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Whiteley, W.
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Mosley and Mr. Sullivan.


Question put, and agreed to.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL,

"to regulate the publication of Reports of Judicial Proceedings in such manner as to prevent injury to public morals," presented by Sir EVELYN CECIL; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolutions:

"That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity."

"That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel."

"That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin."

Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Major Barnett to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Rent Restrictions Bill); and Sir Cyril Cobb (in respect of the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill).

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—"That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session do meet in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room Tomorrow, Wednesday, the 5th of March, at half-past Two o'clock."

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Lords Message considered:—

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. Griffiths.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Sir Berkeley Sheffield.

Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Vivian; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Macgregor Mitchell and Mr. Benjamin Smith.

Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Rent Restrictions Bill): Sir Joseph Nall and Mrs. Wintringham: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Edmund Harvey and Sir Francis Lowe.

Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Mr. Alden, Mr. Becker, Sir Robert Bird, Sir Henry Buckingham, Lieut.-Colonel Campion, Dr. Chapple, Major Church, Sir Arthur Churchman, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Cluse, Major Colfox, Mr. Crittall, Earl of Dalkeith, Captain Dickie, Mr. Doods, Mir. Duckworth,
Mr. Gavan-Duffy, Mr. Dukes, Captain Viscount Ednam, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Finney, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, Mr. Gorman, Mr. Frederick Gould, Mr. Greenall, Mr. Greene, Mr. John Harris, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Mr. Hillary, Mr. Hogbin, Major Kindersley, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lindley, Sir Leonard Lyle, Mr. William Martin, Lieut.-Colonel Mason, Mr. Milne, Mr. Mond, Mr. Mosley, Mr. Nesbitt, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Raffety, Sir James Remnant, Sir Philip Richardson, Colonel Sinclair, Mr. Sutcliffe, Sir Frederick Sykes, and the Marquess of Titchfield.

Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:

"That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection."

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill almost without discussion, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree when I describe in five or six sentences the purpose of the Measure. As hon. Members know, at the end of March in each year a Consolidated Fund Bill is introduced to cover the Supplementary Estimates of the year, and also Votes on Account for the ensuing year. This year, towards the end of the present month, the ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill will be introduced, and hon. Members will then have the opportunity for general discussion which is afforded on that occasion. This Consolidated Fund Bill is necessary in order to enable the Treasury to pay to the appropriate Department, namely, the Ministry of Agriculture, the sum mentioned in the Bill for compensation to farmers in respect of loss due to foot-and-mouth disease. Unless we take a special Bill in this way, that payment will be deferred. With this explanation, I hope the House will give us the Second Reading of this purely formal Bill.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I think that Members of this House who represent agricultural constituencies will all feel a debt of gratitude to the Government for having given us so many opportunities this Session for discussion of these matters, which, are of the deepest interest to agricultural Members. If, possibly, they do not accept that compliment of having so kindly given us these opportunities, we may turn to the Rules of Procedure and the Financial Rules of this House, and thank them for having enabled the agricultural Members just for once to get an opportunity of expressing in full their views upon these very important questions. I have only been in the House just over three years, but I have noticed that the opportunities
for the discussion of agricultural questions have been few and very far between—possibly, one day on the Estimates in the summer; but, thanks to the kindness of the Government, or to the Rules of this House, we have been able this time to express our views at something like the length which the importance of the subject requires. I think that possibly some hon. Members may say or think that by now, after these somewhat lengthy discussions, the agricultural cow is about milked dry; but I would ask them to remember that by the providence of Nature, after each milking time, the cow is re-supplied, and so the agricultural Members of this House have been able to take this great opportunity which has been given them by the Government. I might vary the metaphor and remind hon. Members of the widow's cruse, which every morning was once more filled with oil. I think they will realise that there is behind the agricultural Members who are trying to put the views of their constituents before the House, the same regularity and the same persistency, if not quite the same miraculous intervention, which filled the widow's cruse with oil every morning.
I represent a constituency which, I think I may say—and I do not think that this will be challenged—is well known all over the world as producing the very best pedigree cattle for export purposes, and this breeding for export is one of the most valuable parts of the agricultural industry at the present time. Although, I am glad to say, up to the present there has been no outbreak in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, that does not mean that my constituents are not suffering loss, because, when these attacks of disease are on the country, it is either impossible or very difficult to export pedigree cattle to those parts of the world where they are required. The Hereford breed of cattle, as all hon. Members know, is one that is admired in every part of world. It has all the good qualities.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a good deal too general for the occasion. The reference to those cattle might wait until the end of the month.

Mr. ROBERTS: I will leave the cattle and come to the question of compensation. Through this disease, the export of cattle, whether Hereford or other, is prevented. This has been going on for months, and
no one knows how long it will continue; but, whatever compensation may be paid for slaughter, no compensation is being paid, or can be paid under the law, or should be paid, in regard to loss of trade or loss of opportunities for trade. We are up against a very baffling problem. We are fighting against something the nature of which we do not know. We do not know where it comes from or how it comes. The bacillus has not been isolated; it defies both the filter and the microscope. Therefore, there is the great danger, unless the Ministry of Agriculture and the country as a whole take this matter seriously, that the disease may become endemic in this country, as it has become in many other countries of the world.
Whatever difficulties we may have in considering what the disease is and how it can be dealt with, I think there is a concensus of opinion that it is spread by the movement of cattle about the country by road, by ship or by rail. I do not want to raise again the very controversial question as to whether Paddy is responsible for this outbreak, but Paddy is the most mobile animal at the present time, and he is suspect. Whatever hon. Members may say, there are large numbers of people in this country who do suspect Irish cattle as being responsible for the disease. Therefore, the Minister should most carefully watch all such movements. There is another danger which it seems to me should be considered—and I hope this may not be taken as a case of fools rushing in where experts ought to tread—and that is the question of animals being the carriers of disease without suffering from it. As everyone knows, in many human complaints people can carry diseases with out ever suffering from them. That is particularly so in the case of typhus and diphtheria. Is it not possible that it may also—

Mr. SPEAKER: The only question here is whether we shall authorise the payment to the farmers of the money which has been voted by the House. We cannot go into these wide questions on this occasion.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I believe and hope that this Bill will be received by the whole House with unanimity. In this matter we have had legislation emanating from two previous Governments, and, as we are not altering in any important degree the legislation which has hitherto been passed, I think we may reasonably ask the House for an early passage of the Second Reading of this Measure. The Bill extends, for a further two years, the operation of two Sections of the Act passed last year by the late Government. It virtually re-enacts Section 1 of the 1923 Act, whereby the cost of indoor relief in the Metropolis is charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund at the rate of 1s. 3d. per head per day, and, as regards out-relief, at the maximum rate of 9d. per head per day. Further, it extends Section 2 of that Act, enabling the local authorities to borrow for purposes of providing temporarily for their current expenses, and otherwise extends their borrowing powers during the continuance of this period of abnormal unemployment. These Sections are themselves, with certain modifications, a re-enactment of the earlier Bill of 19–21 passed by the Coalition Government.
The principle of the Bill, as regards the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, is not a new one, because, ever since the establishment of that fund, certain specified items of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Poor Law authorities have been chargeable upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund; but, until very recently, no assistance was given as regards out relief. In view of the very serious unemployment situation, legislation was passed by the Coalition Government under which the cost of out relief in the Metropolitan area was charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund in so far as it conformed with the scale and Regulations which were prescribed by the Minister of Health. At the same time, the Act increased the charge upon the fund for
persons relieved in workhouses from 5d. to 1s. 3d. per day. That Section, which operated for a period of 12 months, expired at the end of 1922, and the Act of last year continued that provision with two modifications. Under the scale approved by the Minister as set out in the Act of 1921, a maximum charge of 9d. per person per day was payable out of the fund in respect of persons on out relief, that figure of 9d. being rather less than the general average payment for out relief in the London area. Secondly, the 1923 Act extended the charge upon the Metropolitan Poor Fund in respect of indoor relief to certain institutions not technically workhouses, such as the colony at Hollesley Bay. The Act which is now in operation expires at the end of this month. The cost of relief for unemployed persons and their dependants in the London area still remains very heavy, and the numbers who are being relieved are falling very slowly, if at all, in the London area, notwithstanding a more appreciable fall in the provinces. In view of the prevailing circumstances an extension of the Act is necessary, and last December the late Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) sent a Circular to the London local authorities asking for their views on the continuance of the Act, and also suggesting its extension for a period of two years instead of one year, as in the case of the present Act. That Circular received a good deal of support, but representations have been made to the Ministry chiefly on two points, one regarding the period and one regarding the rate of charge on the funds for out relief. It has been suggested that the Act should be extended for only one year, and also that the rate of charge on the fund, which now stands at 9d. and which, when it was introduced, was rather less than the average for the London area, should be reduced to 7d.
I think there are reasons against continuing the Act for only one year. We should at the present time have been relieved of the responsibility for this Bill had the Act of last year been put into operation for two years, and I have no doubt myself that conditions a year hence will be such as to necessitate the continuance of the Measure again for a year, and from the point of view of the saving
of Parliamentary time alone, I think, an extension for two years from 1st April, 1924, would be justifiable. The Government are committed to a Measure of Poor Law relief, but even with the best will in the world it cannot be thought out and carried through the House and put into operation in a very short space of time. Even if it could, it is quite clear that there will be a good deal of time taken up in winding up the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and when that time comes, clearly if the present Act were in operation that would have to be wound up with the fund. In other words, if there is no further necessity for this Act because of the Poor Law reform, its operation can come to an end. If, however, the Act only lasted for one year and there was need of continuing its provisions, further legislation would be necessary, and I think, therefore, the House will agree on the reasonableness of our suggestion that the Bill should continue to operate for two years instead of one. As regards the suggestion which has been made in various quarters that the ninepence per head per day should be reduced to seven-pence, that figure of ninepence was fixed having regard to existing costs. There is no suggestion that the index number of the cost of living has fallen. There is no suggestion that the cost of living for the guardians has substantially fallen, and consequently if ninepence was the right figure before it is clearly the right figure now, and in the absence of any substantial reason why it should be reduced I suggest that it should continue in operation. The average cost per person on out-relief in London for the half-year ending September, 1922, was 10.43 pence. The corresponding figure for the half-year ending September, 1923, was 10.22 pence, a very small decrease which in no way warrants any substantial cut in the rate of ninepence.
Clause 2 of the Bill relates to borrowing powers. Under the Act of 1921 a local authority was empowered, with the consent of the Minister, to borrow for the purpose of defraying current expenses, any amount so borrowed being repayable out of the revenue received in respect of the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred. But there was a proviso which enabled the Minister to extend the term of such borrowing where the circumstances
were exceptional up to a maximum period of 10 years where the money was borrowed under the original Act before 1953 and under the present-Act before 1st April, 1924. This proviso extending the period of the loan has enabled local authorities to spread the cost of a quite unprecedented period of bad trade by means of borrowing over a period of years and has undoubtedly eased the situation for many local authorities. In the next place Subsection (1) of Section 6, referred to in the Schedule of the Bill, provided that money borrowed before 1st April, 1923, for unemployment relief works should not be counted in the usual limit of loans which a local authority may borrow. Under the Public Health Acts the limit is two years' assessable value. Moreover the Public Health Act, 1875, requires that where a local authority proposes to raise the total debt by means of a loan to over one year's assessable value, a local inquiry should be held. The Act of 1921 suspended that requirement. Those three provisions regarding loans we propose should be re-enacted. The serious unemployment from which we are still suffering was the cause of the legislation of 1921. That legislation was modified in the light of experience. Further legislation along those lines was passed by the late Government. It expires this month and we believe that the serious unemployment and poverty which still exist justify the continuance of the Act and with a view to rendering unnecessary any further legislation for some time we believe this new Bill should be put into operation for two years. There is little time before the new Act must come into operation and I feel, having regard to what I may call the non-party nature of this Measure, which is based upon the Acts of two Governments, in one of which hon. Members below the Gangway were concerned and the other composed of hon. Members opposite, there should be very little opposition to the Measure, tie principles of which have, I think, been approved in all quarters of the House.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is an entirely non-party Measure and I feel it myself to be especially non-party because the first time I spoke on this subject in the House, in 1921, I remember attacking the promoter
of the Bill, Sir Alfred Mond, because he had introduced a temporary Bill instead of tackling the question of Poor Law reform in London, while the second time I had anything to do with the subject I was responsible under my right hon. Friend for introducing this very temporary Bill again. But while this is entirely a non-party Measure there are one or two questions I should like to put. In the first place I want to put a question as to the drafting of the Measure. Clause 1 says that the provisions of the Act of 1923, so far as mentioned in the Schedule, shall be extended. In the Schedule you find Sections (1) and (2) of the Act with a description as to their subject-matter, but since in Clause 1 it is the provisions of the Act which are being extended in so far as they are mentioned in the Schedule, and not the Clauses of the Act, the subject-matter in the Schedule becomes not only a convenient description, for convenience of reading, but acquires an importance as showing what provisions you actually are extending. Therefore, because I think the wording of the Schedule is not at all clear, I want to have it quite clear that the whole of Sections 1 and 2 are intended to be extended by the Bill, and that none of the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 are allowed to lapse on 1st April. I believe that is the case, but I should like to have it clear. There is another remarkable thing about the Bill which the hon. Gentleman quite omitted to mention, but which doubtless is very present to the mind of his right hon. colleague, namely, the fact that there is no extension of Section 3 of the 1923 Act, which dealt with Scotland. Naturally we want to know whether Scotland is being left out in the cold—and that I can hardly believe—or whether it is going to be made the subject of a separate Measure, and whether we may expect to have that Measure introduced at a very early date.
Now I come to what is the main point of the Bill, namely, the extension of time and the terms under which the time is extended. It is true that the proposal to extend the time and to keep the figure at ninepence, as it was in the previous Act, really originated with the previous Government, was circulated to them by the local authorities, and that, on the whole, the replies of the local authorities have been that the extension might well be for a year, and that there is no need for altering the per capita limit.
The only thing I should like to say about the date is that the first day of April, while it is a distinct improvement on the thirty-first day of December from the Parliamentary point of view, is a very bad date. I am quite sure that if any legislation of this kind is going to go on until such time as this Government or any succeeding Government introduces a Measure for the relief of the Poor Law, that Measure cannot be introduced in any comprehensive and enduring form before the Session of 1926. The danger of the 1st April is that Parliament never has time to deal with anything big before Easter. There will always have to be some extension of this Act until Parliament has had time during the whole Session to deal with it. Speaking entirely for myself, I am inclined to think that the 30th September would be a more convenient date from that point of view. I do not commit myself on that, but I throw it out as a possibility.
There is another very much more important question which was not touched on at all by the hon. Member. My recollection is that some of the local authorities who were consulted on this subject expressed a desire for some further limitation on the calls that might be made on the Metropolitan Poor Law. It is, of course, perfectly obvious that a per capita limit, while it does involve a cheek on the expenditure of boards of guardians on any person whom they are relieving, does not furnish any adequate check on the undue extension in the number of persons relieved, and boards of guardians are under no incentive, so far as the grant from the Metropolitan Poor Law is concerned, to keep the numbers relieved within the proper limits, whatever those proper limits may be—a question which I am not discussing at the present moment. That is important, because, whatever differences of opinion we may have as to the administration of the Poor Law in London, I think we should all agree that the worst way in which a board of guardians can mal-administer the Poor Law Acts is unduly to extend the number of persons relieved. The great danger of the Poor Law system which is based on domicile is that you will tend and almost be obliged in many instances to maintain in the localities a rising generation of population which to a certain extent ought to be distributed throughout the
country in response to changes in the locality of industry. An undue extension in the number of persons relieved may therefore perpetuate an irremediable state of unemployment in an area to an extent which the mere exaggeration of the amount of relief given could not possibly do. Therefore, this device of a check on boards of guardians by a per capita limit is a very imperfect one. My recollection is that the Ministry at about the time when the last Government left office was asking the local authorities concerned whether they could devise any additional check which would meet that need. It is admittedly very difficult to do.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: That point was made by the Minister at that time, at the end of his circular which the noble Lord probably has in mind. I did not refer to it, but I will read it now.
The Minister would at the same time be prepared to consider any suggestions that may be made to him with a view to preventing any unfair inflation of the number of out-relief cases in respect of which claims may be made.
No such suggestions have been received.

Lord E. PERCY: That passage in the circular was in response to verbal representations, and I wanted to know if any concrete suggestions had been put forward. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for his reply, but I do think it is necessary to make it quite clear that until such a concrete suggestion is put forward, the check which appears to be provided under this Bill and under the previous Act is really an ineffective one against the worst form of extravagance that boards of guardians may go in for. I hope the Minister will consider that point in connection with all the other points with a view to devising a remedy. This is not a question which merely comes up under a temporary Bill of this kind, It is a problem which will come up under any future re-arrangement, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to this Debate, may be able to show that he has already devoted his mind to this very difficult problem and give us some idea as to how it can be met. I will not delay the House any longer. We shall not, of course, oppose in any way the Second Reading of this Bill, and we recognise that we are indeed very largely responsible for it.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I may say that it is proposed to introduce a separate Bill for Scotland.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: As has already been mentioned, this is no party Bill; but, on the other hand, there are certain sections of a non-party character which have on previous occasions, when Bills of this character have been introduced, had to put in a claim, not for what was in the Bill, but for what the Bill omitted. The right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Minister for Health will recollect that when he brought in his Bill, and when the Minister for Health preceding him brought in the original Bill of 1921 for assisting distressed areas in the Metropolitan boroughs, a claim was then put forward that, although the need was great in London, it was as great, if not greater, in the provinces. The question I would put to the Minister is, what provision is he prepared to make, if not in this Bill, in some subsequent Measure, for meeting a problem which is as intense in other parts of the country as it is here? It seems as though those of us who were law-abiding, those of us who were patient and long-suffering, have to suffer because of our forbearance. Local authorities in industrial areas in the provinces seem to be, as it were, the Cinderella of municipal and local authorities. Those, like Poplar, who have raised their voices with some effect, have received from the Governments of the past a measure of equalisation.

Mr. LANSBURY: And six weeks in prison.

Mr. THOMSON: The point I want to put to the Minister has reference to a difficulty which I know he has inherited. It is not a problem of his own making, and therefore one is not putting forward this in any hostile spirit, but rather pleading with him that he should do what his pre decessors have unfortunately failed to do in the past. The House will remember that when Sir Alfred Mond as Minister of Health was introducing the Bill of 1921, one of the reasons he gave for that Bill, that measure of equalisation, was the considerable difference in the ratings in the various Metropolitan boroughs. He told us that, whereas the rates in the City of London were 10s. 6d., the rates in Poplar were 22s. 10d. That was the reason why he claimed there should be a measure of
equalisation. When you have a rate in Merthyr Tydvil to-day of 25s. 6d., as compared with a rate of 7s. in Blackpool, or a rate in Middlesbrough of 20s. and in Bournemouth of 8s. 5d., you have a discrepancy which is even greater than that which called forth the equalisation measure for the Metropolitan boroughs. I submit, if the principle of equalisation is sound, it should not be limited by geographcal conditions, but it should be applied equally throughout the country. I am quite aware that it is impossible before the 1st April to bring in a scheme which would give this measure of justice and this measure of equalisation to the provinces, but I do submit that before the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill it should have some assurances from the Minister that, having got this Bill for 2 or 2½ years, the provinces should not be left alone and without any assistance whatever.
The Minister is fully acquainted with the question. It was only last week that he received a deputation from necessitous areas in the provinces representing some 61 local authorities covering a population of over 12 million people, and they put before him a case which I think he will find it difficult to resist. I do plead for the necessitous areas outside the Metropolitan boroughs that they should have some measure of equalisation not, it is true, on the same lines. It is impossible to apply the same machinery to the provinces as you have here. There is no common poor fund in the provinces. But surely it should be possible to apply the same principle of justice to those necessitous areas outside London as that relief which this particular Bill gives?
5.p.m.
I do not want to labour the point, but surely when you have a poor rate as low as 5d. in Bournemouth and as high as 10s. in Merthyr Tydvil, there is a very strong prima facie case for some assistance. Previous Ministers have received deputations. The one that went to the right hon. Gentleman the other day was the fifth deputation that has come from these areas since 1921, and the principle has been sympathetically considered by each Ministry in turn. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he has a great opportunity of distinguishing himself even more than he has done up to the present by finding a practical way of translating that sympathy which other Ministers have
given utterances to in some real measure of relief to those particular districts. I am encouraged to hope that that may be so, because the Minister of Labour, speaking in this House on another question earlier in the Session, admitted the point that this question of excessive Poor Law relief is not a local question, but is a national question. The Minister of Labour said on the 18th February:
The present position is, that unemployment of an exceptional kind is facing the country. In the opinion of the Government, that unemployment is directly caused by the War, and ought to be considered a national responsibility. The present position is that the industries bear, roughly, three-fourths of a burden that ought to be purely national."—[OFFICIAL RRPOHT, 18th February, 1924; col. 1381, Vol. 169.]
Those industrial areas not only are bearing a burden which is oppressive to the ratepayers, but the industries themselves are being killed and crippled by rates and taxes which are making competition with the rest of the world almost impossible. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister that he should not be content to put off this question until we come to the whole problem of Poor Law reform.
The noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) suggested that it might be the year 1926 before it would be possible for this or any Government to deal with the question of Poor Law Reform on a comprehensive basis. We cannot afford to wait until 1926. The measure of suggested relief given by this Bill is entirely inadequate. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was sought to extend the power of loans to local authorities for a further period. Surely, when you have local authorities with rates of 20s. in the £, when their loans run in some places over £1,000,000, as in some of the larger boroughs of greater London, and in the provinces to £500,000 or more, it is futile to tell those local authorities that the State will assist by lending them money at the market rate of interest. The previous Minister of Health went a step further when speaking on this question last year. He then suggested that local authorities should not only have extended borrowing powers, but that in some cases the payment of interest as well as the repayment of loans should be postponed for a period. I would like to ask the Minister whether
his Department have granted any local authorities loans on these terms, that is to say, allowing them to forego the payment of interest during those periods of acute depression, when their rates are already at an excessive figure? But, even if this provision has not been taken advantage of to any extent, I hope he will not think that that in itself is going to be any solution of the problem. It is of no use piling up debt and crippling local authorities for years to come. In the County Borough of Middlesbrough where there are, I understand, something like 10,000 direct individual ratepayers, over 5,000 have not paid their rates for last year. That is typical of the position in many towns, and it shows the appalling position, especially in those towns in the heavy steel and iron districts. We have been told that unemployment has been falling in the provinces. While it is true that the average last year for unemployment was between 11 and 12 per cent., you have certain districts where unemployment is even now increasing. Take the North-East corner of England, where shipbuilding, engineering and ironwork is carried on, and you find greater unemployment in engineering. Last January, the rate of unemployment in engineering was 21 per cent., and in shipbuilding the rate was 40 per cent. Those rates are double and four times those of the rest of the country.
I submit that it is not unfair to say that this is indeed a national problem, and that assistance should be given from the Treasury to the necessitous areas. A practical scheme was put up to the right hon. Gentleman last week by a deputation of local authorities from the provinces. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he has considered their proposal to equalise the burden of poor relief in the provinces in the same way as it is done in the London metropolitan boroughs. It is suggested that each district should bear its quota of Poor Law relief according to its population, but that, when the percentage of poor relief given is in excess of the rest of the country, then part of that excess should be borne by the Treasury. It is suggested that safeguards should be introduced whereby the Treasury should be protected, in order that in no case should any local authority receive more than half of its expenditure in Poor Law relief if it was above the average of
the rest of the country. It was further proposed that in no case should the local authority receive this assistance if its Poor Law relief should be less than the average poor relief for the whole of the country. I hope this scheme will prove one which will enable him to avoid those difficulties which his predecessor pointed out in connection with a previous scheme. If the scheme is not watertight, I ask the Minister to so amend and improve it that it will meet the conditions of his Department, and that he will not merely turn it down on some technical matter', or some flaw in the particular formula suggested. In the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, you have £2,750,000 handed over by the Treasury for the relief of distressed agriculture. I do not grudge them that money, but I do say that, if their distress was great, the distress in the industrial areas is greater to-day than it is in agricultural districts. We have a good claim for putting forward our case, and I appeal to the Minister that he will be able to hold out some promise of help to those distressed areas which have been man fully, patiently and quietly bearing their burdens and that, because of their patience and forbearance, they will not be penalised in favour of those who make themselves heard in a more vociferous way.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I think the House will in the main agree with what the hon. Member has just said. I have no doubt that many of the areas he has referred to up and down the country will be disappointed to-day, because their well merited claims are again apparently to be postponed for some considerable period. The Minister of Health will be prepared himself to say that this can only be regarded as a stop-gap Measure, and I hope he will expedite what is a very urgent matter. It is only fair to say-that, while I sympathise with the claims which the hon. Gentleman has put forward on behalf of the poorer localities, that these proposals did, in fact, come forward from Westminster and the City of London. Westminster, which made the proposal, contributed in the year 1922–23 a sum of nearly £700,000, and in the following year it is estimated that their contribution will be over £870,000.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can you tell us how much of that is put on the rates?

Sir K. WOOD: As the Member for Bow and Bromley is interested in this matter, it is also material that the House should know that for the half-year ending September, 1922, for every £ contributed by Poplar ratepayers towards the cost of outdoor relief in Poplar, the rest of London has contributed £7.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Sir K. WOOD: How far the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley regards that with satisfaction, I do not know; but I think he ought to be willing to acknowledge this afternoon that a very substantial contribution is being made by other areas in London in this matter.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Sir K. WOOD: I was hoping that the Minister of Health would, at any rate, have been enabled to incorporate in this Bill some of the conclusions which he perhaps might have arrived at concerning the Poplar question generally. He will remember that the Prime Minister the other day, when he followed the Minister of Health, indicated that while this provision should be made, he was certainly of opinion that further checks and safeguards should be imposed. The Under-Secretary for Health will remember that I put a question to him one or two days ago, asking him whether, following that intimation from the Prime Minister, any further proposals would come forward from the Government. This little Bill deals, certainly, with one aspect of the matter, but I thought it would have been an opportunity to have taken some steps by which the Minister could have dealt with a matter which is certainly urgent and deserves immediate consideration. While it is true that in this Bill we are to have equalisation on the old lines, I think the Minister of Health will agree, and I fancy he said so the other day, that some further checks ought to be immediately imposed. The Member for Bow and Bromley does not disguise the fact that, so far as his contribution from Poplar is concerned, his manner of administering Poor Law relief is going to go on as before.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Sir K. WOOD: He retracts nothing, and he and his colleagues intend to go on as before. I am addressing a question to the Minister of Health asking him
whether he is urging the auditor at Poplar to proceed rapidly with the auditing of the Poor Law Guardians accounts in order that, as he is apparently prepared to grapple with the situation immediately, he may be in an early position to know the exact state of affairs at Poplar. But whatever the result of that audit may be, I think it is clear that the present law is obviously insufficient. I suggested, some little time ago, and I think I had an opportunity of discussing it with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, what I thought would be a very useful check. It is that in districts where there are illegalities and overexpenditure by boards of guardians, ratepayers should be permitted to raise that defence when they are summoned for rates. That defence is not open at the present moment to a ratepayer. I think that would be a very useful check on boards of guardians, not only in Poplar but elsewhere. Where it is known that there is flagrant abuse, the ratepayer should be permitted to raise a statutory defence and say: "No! I ask that no order be made against me so long as illegalities are going on. Directly illegalities cease, I am quite prepared to pay my rates, but I ask the Court to make no order against me while there is gross overexpenditure." Surely it would have been well to have incorporated some Clause to that effect in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister of Health will consider that when we get into Committee upstairs. It ought "not to await the reform of the Poor Law.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is rather unfortunate that it should be intimated that we are not to have a reform of the Poor Law until 1926. I am very much afraid that the Minister of Health will not be in a position then to deal with it in the way that we would like him to do. Nothing would interest me and other hon. Members more than to see the hon. Member's proposals for a reform of the Poor Law. I hope he will not be so optimistic in regard to the future of himself and his party as to wait until 1926. I hope we shall have some intimation from him this afternoon that at a very early date he will bring in his proposals. Whatever proposals are brought forward, the fact remains that this subject is very complex. It will raise great controversy, and many months will elapse before we see any proposals
of the kind on the Statute Book. In the interval, is the Minister of Health going to allow the present state of affairs at Poplar to continue? I admire the courage and determination of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He is quite plain on the matter. What is the Minister of Health going to do? Will he not take the opportunity in this Bill of adding one or two Clauses which would give some protection to a large number of ratepayers who have not a voice in the administration of their own borough? It is correct to say that in Poplar to-day there are ratepayers who pay over £400,000 per annum who have not a voice in the administration of that borough.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Member aware that the Port of London Authority, the London County Council, the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company pay the bigger part of the sum he has mentioned? How could their shareholders have a voice in the administration of the borough? The Port of London and the London County Council are public authorities.

Sir K. WOOD: I agree. These authorities ought to have a voice in the administration of the borough in some form or other. To say that the London County Council pay a very large sum is no reason why you should debar a big firm in the district, who pay £10,000 per annum, from having a voice in the administration of the borough and being able to say how their money should be spent. If I remember correctly, the Minister of Health himself acquiesced in that view. He indicated that it was his own idea, and that he did not think it was a state of affairs that ought to continue. I do not think he will agree with me as to the solution, but I think he intimated that it was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. If that be so, it is all the more reason why in this Bill he should give some further protection to these ratepayers.
I hope he is not going to ride off on the fact that, in the Debate which took place in regard to Poplar the other night, the Motion was carried that the Debate should continue. I hope he will afford us another day for discussion, and I hope he does not think that the matter has ended.
I believe that his troubles in regard to Poplar are just beginning. He will find himself in the same position as every Minister of Health. In the very excellent speech the other night, in which he defended himself very vigorously, he said that his predecessors had done nothing. He will be in exactly the same position as his predecessors. In a few weeks' time he will be faced by an auditor's certificate, stating the amount that ought to be surcharged against the Poplar Board of Guardians. He will then have to come to some decision in the matter, and I hope that he is thinking it over very seriously with a view to bringing some concrete proposal before the House.
This Bill might have afforded an excellent opportunity of adding some protective Clauses, in the interval before he brings forward his great proposals in connection with the reform of the Poor Law. In connection with this Bill, he might have given some protection to a large number of ratepayers who, he himself thinks, ought to have some further protection. I hope that he will be able to make some statement in connection with this matter. So far as the exact terms of the Bill are concerned, we cannot disagree. The criticism of the Bill is that, in the first place, it postpones for some time the Poor Law reform proposals of the Government, and, secondly, it fails to deal with the very urgent matters which confront the right hon. Gentleman and call for a solution.

Mr. KEENS: I wish to call attention to the fact that, in connection with Poplar, Mr. Edgar Lansbury has stated. "What does it matter? The bulk of the money comes from the other end of London." Everybody on this side agrees that there must be some form of equalisation. Everybody, I assume, agrees that the question of necessitous areas is one of great difficulty, and that the problem of London is not only one of complexity, but one which must stand by itself because of the different circumstances compared with other great areas. My point is this, that to extend this Bill for a period of two years, two and a half years, or any other period, without giving adequate guarantees to the remainder of the citizens of London that the money which they contribute shall be properly spent, is committing an
injustice upon those citizens. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill talked about the average rate of relief as being something in the neighbourhood of 10½d. per person. We do not want to know what the average cost is, but what we do desire to know is the cost in particular areas to which the largest contributions are made, but which themselves produce the smallest contribution. The question of the number of persons is a much more important point than any scale of relief. The answer that was given to the question of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) yesterday, as to whether any suggestions could be made for these guarantees, was a statement from the Government, "We are looking to you for suggestions." I suggest that that is a case of very great weakness on the part of the Government. Surely, they must shoulder the responsibility of bringing forward adequate guarantees for the proper expenditure of these huge sums of money which are paid by the ratepayers of London as a whole.
I should like to make a few suggestions which may be of service. In the first place, I suggest that all the audits in these areas should be speeded up, that the information should be available very much sooner than it is, and that if it is necessary to reorganise the audit staff of the Ministry of Health it might be worth while as a measure of economy for that to be done. The question of surcharges also needs great consideration, and there must be and should be reversion to the old system by which it was treated judicially and all the expenditure had to be justified. In addition, there must be some special measure either on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for West Woolwich, or on some other lines, for the protection of individual ratepayers against mal-administration. It is no use saying that in any local government area the ratepayers are the electors and that they can settle the matter themselves. How can you get that in an area where one-fifth of the people on the electorate in the area are in receipt of relief? Consequently, I suggest that there must be some further protection. It is impossible to vote against this particular Bill because the money has to be obtained, and to hold up a measure of equalisation which has got as far as this has got would intensify the difficulties of every Poor Law authority;
but I do hope sincerely that opportunity will be taken by the Minister of Health to assure the House that the proposals which have been put forward as to security for the ratepayers of London generally will be considered by him and that they will in future be put into force.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: This Bill, when it becomes law, will stereotype the present inequalities between different districts throughout the country. In reply to a question, the Minister of Health stated that a separate Bill would probably be introduced for Scotland. When that Bill is introduced it may well be, as has so often happened in the past, that the Minister in charge of the Bill will point out that because a certain Bill has been passed for England it would be impossible to apply a different system to Scotland. Therefore, before the Second Reading stage of this Bill is completed, I hope that we shall have some assurance from the Minister of Health that the grave inequalities which the present law has placed upon different localities, not only in England but in Scotland, will receive consideration. I know that the Minister of Health must be fully seized with the grave position of, say, the city of Glasgow. Unemployment in that area has placed upon the citizens of Glasgow a very heavy burden in comparison with the burden placed on the citizens of, say, Aberdeen.
In my own constituency of Greenock, for instance, the Emergency Provisions Bills passed during the last two years have placed upon the inhabitants of Greenock a burden of 16s. 6d. in comparison with a burden of 4s. in Dundee and 6s. in Aberdeen. This Bill simply continues the present law and the present system. Is it fair that an emergency Bill passed nearly three years ago should be continued for another period of two years, when during the three years experience has shown that this extra burden has been placed upon certain localities? Take the shipbuilding industry. As the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) pointed out, you have shipbuilders in some areas competing with shipbuilders in other areas where the burden of unemployment is not so great. Is this system to continue?
I appeal to the Minister for Health when the Bill is introduced for Scotland, or rather before, this Bill becomes law, to adjust this unfair burden between trade and trade and between district and district so as not to be unfair between individuals, with some areas where unemployment is light let off with a low Poor Law rate, and that we shall not be asked, as we are asked this afternoon, to continue the existing inequality for another two years. The Minister when introducing the Bill stated that it might be unnecessary to introduce new legislation for another two years. He also pointed out that the local authorities had been given power to borrow and repay that sum over a period of years. It is simply postponing the repayment of capital which the different localities are bound to repay in the future. Could we not have, before many months are over, some considered seheme from the Minister of Health, who must be fully cognisant of the very unfair burden which these measures have placed on the shoulders of individuals in different localities? I agree that this is a distinctly non-party Measure, and I hope that, before the question is put from the Chair, we may have some assurance from the Minister of Health that the present grave inequality will receive his serious consideration.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was hoping that this Debate would have gone through without dragging in King Charles' head in the form of Poplar, but two or three questions have been raised concerning it. It is true that Poplar gets the allowance out of the common poor fund. That, as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has told us, is the very object of this Bill. That is to relieve the districts that need relief most. Other unions get pro rata very much the same amount. When hon. Members stand up and speak with apparent authority on this subject I wonder why their vision of the area of the Metropolis stops short always at the River Lea. If it were not that the Metropolitan common poor fund is in being I think that there would be no discussion whatever about Poplar for this simple reason. In the Union next to us, West Ham, about which we hear nothing, the number in receipt of Poor Law relief, over 70,000 for part of last-year, is double ours. It is something just over 70,000 at the present moment. It is true that it is a bigger district but
it is also true that it is a Union in a large portion of which there is very little pauperism and that the mass of pauperism—I use that official word, advisedly—is confined—and the hon. Member for Plaistow will agree with me—to a portion of the area which is bounded by the Thames on one side and by Wanstead Flats on the other.
If you want to compare Poplar with anything you must compare it with that area. These are two areas entirely different from any other area in the Metropolis. No one faces that fact. Everybody talks as if the Metropolitan area stopped when you come to the River Lea, but the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) knows that as well as I do—because I understood that he took the Poor Law side when he was at the Ministry of Health—that the West Ham problem of poverty causes in that Department as much anxiety as the problem of Poplar. It is only because we have as it were persuaded London to come in and help us to bear the burden that the whole of this discovery has arisen. In regard to that I think that the House acts just a little unworthily by always throwing in our teeth that we have this fund. We in East London are under a great debt of gratitude to the Chairman of the Westminster and the Kensington districts, and other representatives who attended the Conference and of their own volition proposed this, which was more than Poplar asked before we went to prison. And I think it a little ungracious for Members who are not really finding this money to be as it were discussing whether we are getting it worthily or not. I attended—and I am giving away no secrets—as one of the delegates of Poplar the Conference that settled the question of the scale, and it may surprise the House to know that those who represented the paying-in unions proposed that there should be no scale at all, but that all of us ought to be left to pay what we thought was right according to our discretion. That was put forward not by Poplar but by the paying-in unions.
The hon. Member for West Woolwich has referred to a subject about which the Minister spoke on the last occasion. That is the want of representation of the bigger ratepayers in this matter. I shall oppose, whether my right hon. Friend
brings in this Bill or not, the giving of votes to limited companies in any circumstances. There is no reason why you should want to give votes to limited companies in poor districts, any more than in rich districts. So far as I am concerned the votes are given to private people. The hon. Member said that these, poor ratepayers cannot get a look in. When I was first a guardian the guardians formed the assessment committee. The East and West India Docks, the Millwall Docks, and others were rated by the committee. The assessment of the property was a very important matter, and so one of the high officials in those companies always had his residence in Poplar, and always stood as a candidate for the guardians, and he always by some means or other became a member of the assessment committee, and until the assessment was transferred to the Poplar Borough Council he was always the chairman of that committee. The extraordinary thing is that when it became the Port of London Authority we had no representatives of the Port on the board of guardians at all.
We also had sitting on the board persons representing a big match factory in our district and a big shipbuilding concern in our district. All that disappeared when the assessment was taken out of the hands of the guardians and put into those of the borough council. Then they came to the borough council. The only reason they are not on the borough council to-day was that when Mr. John Burns occupied the position which my right hon. Friend occupies to-day he took Poplar in hand in this drastic manner in which you are being challenged to take it to-day, and the municipal alliance, until the War, controlled Poplar from the point of view of majority. This House does not know that the Poplar Labour people never had a majority in Poplar until 1918, and that all the time the rates in Poplar were I infinitely higher than in any other borough in the country, and the sole reason—and this ever will be the case while conditions remain the same—is that Poplar and West Ham have such a burden as no other place has, and that is the burden of casual labour.

Lord E. PERCY: indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lord shakes his head. I with that he had the opportunity to reply, so that he could
tell me where that other place is, because our rateable value per head in Poplar is much lower than in Bermondsey, which is the only other comparable place, and over in Bermondsey they have not the amount of docking and dock labour that we have in Poplar or that they have in West Ham. We have the East and West India Docks and the Mill-wall Dock, and in Bermondsey they have only the Surrey Dock. The fact that half our rateable value ie due to factories and the Port of London must reduce the general level of our rates per head. But the House should recognise that when hon. Members of the party opposite were in control of Poplar, they were never able to get the rates down. The facts are as I have stated, and anybody can verify them. The real reason is that no one can take charge of the Poor Law in Poplar or West Ham without giving outdoor relief.
That brings me to another point, that is the point about demoralisation caused by relief. I agree—and I have said it at least a dozen times in this House—with everybody else about the demoralisation caused by relief of any kind, whether from a Labour Exchange or from relief. I do not see the difference between a man getting for six months £1 a week from a Labour Exchange or from relief. In my judgment they pay for it either in rates or some other way. It is always paid for, but the point is that you do not get over it merely by talking about Poplar all the time. Surely, the thing to do is to find some means of dealing with the problem which is there. The Noble Lord said that if you keep on giving relief, you keep the people there. I very nearly interrupted him to ask him where we are to send them. We have always heard that people ought to move about, but if he will tell me privately any place where I can get work for these young men and women, I will see that they go there, and we will not give them relief.
One other point. My hon. Friend opposite said that he admired us because we stuck to our guns. Sticking to our guns is that we have not done anything illegal. We have said a thousand times that we are not paying trade union rates of pay in relief. We have never done it. We think that it ought to be done, but we have not got the power. There is no
use in hon. Members saying continuously what is not true. I will give an example of how history is made in regard to Poplar. There is a certain newspaper which is founded on cocoa, and on 27th February it produced this: It is headed "Six pounds a week" and it says:
Mr. Kedward of Bermondsey embarrassed Mr. Lansbury by a question relating to a family whose circumstances have been verified to-day. In this case a man, wife and six children received from the Poplar Guardians £4 6s. a week. The man had an Army pension of 10s. 6d. weekly, and he had a son at home earning £2 10s. The son contributed only 12s. 6d. to the family income. Mr. Lansbury said that he could not deal with the case on the spur of the moment.
I took the trouble to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey about this, and in a speech of his later he made the matter perfectly clear—that he had taken a hypothetical case on the Bermondsey books and had applied the Poplar scale, and that the case would come out at the figures quoted, but that there had never been any such case verified in Poplar. That is how history is made about Poplar. I undertake to say that the case will be quoted all over the country. I wrote a letter to the newspaper pointing this out, and with the usual courtesy of a Jack-of-both-sides, fair-to-all-parties newspaper, it has not published it. That case is another sample of the sort of charge that is made against Poplar. About a year ago, in every newspaper of the country, there appeared a statement, very similar, of a man getting £8 a week. We took up the matter. First of all, it was said that a philanthropic society had given the name. We traced the philanthropic society and then were able to publish their contradiction. But we never caught up the lies, I am sure, and we never can. I hope that the Minister of Health will take this matter in hand. I sympathise with all those districts that are not getting any assistance, but I hope that they are not going to do anything to stop our getting what we have had for the last two or three years.

Mr. GATES: I do not wish in any way to cast stones at Poplar, nor to comment more than I can help on the management of that distinguished parish by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I represent the very poor part of a contributing parish, and I am asked to express regret—shall I say
surprise—at the action of the Ministry of Health in continuing this temporary Measure for another two years. I do not know whether it is that the right hon. Gentleman, who now so ably represents that Ministry, is desirous of putting the matter off, so that he himself will have nothing more to do with it, the assumption being that in two years' time he will not be in office; but I do say that the present arrangements are absolutely indefensible, and that I should have thought that the present Government, in their eagerness for work and eagerness to do away with abuses, could have produced a proper scheme within the space of one year. I would appeal to the Minister not to extend the provisions of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Act to 1926, but to limit it to 1925, and to take the opportunity, which, perhaps, he will have, of introducing a comprehensive Measure himself.
My constituents feel very much concerned in this matter. They contribute a very considerable sum. As the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has said, they were parties, by their mayor, to the arrangement that was made with the Ministry of Health in 1920, and, of course, I cannot go away from that. But when they agreed to that arrangement they were certainly under the impression that the Ministry of Health would exercise a stricter control over the money which they contributed to the spending parishes, and they feel that there is a very grave objection to a Measure such as this, which continues to allow individual parishes to draw upon a common purse for the purpose of out-relief to an extent which is practically unlimited. It has really become the practice that all able-bodied people should have out-relief. That was never the practice before the War, and it is a practice which should be discontinued as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and I have been in public life in London for 30 years, and we have served together on other authorities which endeavoured to do good work for able-bodied men who are unemployed. I believe that the hon. Member, in his heart of hearts, will agree with me that the new departure of granting out-relief by boards of guardians is not one that should be encouraged, and that it would be very much better if other methods could be adopted.
We feel very strongly in Kensington that if we are called upon to bear a large share of the burden of unemployment in the Metropolis, we are certainly entitled to insist that any prolongation of the present temporary enactment shall be accompanied by provisions which will protect the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund from abuse, and will effectually reduce the claims upon it to reasonable limits. I understand that the Minister is anxious for help in the matter. He has stated in a circular that he is prepared to consider any suggestions which may be made to him with a view to preventing any unfair inflation of the number of out-relief cases in respect of which claims can be made on the Fund. I do not know whether this is the time and place to make suggestions to him, but I say that there should be uniform administration and effective central control. That is the point which I submit for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. Of course, the problem would be greatly simplified if we could have some method of dealing with the unemployed as distinct from the unemployable. I feel bound by the offer that the contributing boroughs made, an offer which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has handsomely acknowledged. I feel unable to protest in any way against the scale which we are paying of 9d. per day per head. But we feel that, limited as that scale may be, there has been a considerable abuse by some of the boroughs, and that against it those who contribute should be guarded.
It falls particularly hard on the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. I represent the Cinderella sister of Kensington, a poor part, with very many poor people. Probably two-thirds of my constituents live in tenement houses, and there are large numbers of struggling tradesmen, and so on. It falls very hard on them to have to contribute such a handsome sum as they contributed for 30th September, 1922, of £62,881, to the Common Poor Fund. I have often heard the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) talk about the rich parishes, and how they ought to contribute more. He and the House will appreciate that if only there were a uniform system of assessment, those advantages would disappear. In a district like Poplar or Bethnal Green you have a high rate and
a low assessment. In a borough like Kensington you have a high assessment and a low rate. The contributions made by the ratepayers, if you allow for these considerations, probably come to very much the same thing in what is called the poor borough or the rich borough; the burden is practically the same.
I had the honour of giving evidence before the Royal Commission, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. As a former member of the London County Council, I gave my assent, in answer to the Chairman, to a speedy reform of the. Poor Law, and I expressed my belief that what is called the Maclean Report would be one of the best ways of dealing with the matter. I feel that the whole problem hinges upon a real simplification of the Poor Law. Probably it would be a real advantage if we had a common poor rate for London. But that must be accompanied by a strict control over the administration of each of the unions. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question whether he cannot limit the terms of this Bill to one year.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: We have heard a very sad tale about the poverty-stricken ratepayers of the Royal Borough of Kensington. Certainly, the hon. Member wished to be commiserated with in comparing their lot with that of the ratepayers of Bethnal Green. But if the Royal Borough of Kensington likes to exchange its assessable value for the assessable value of Bethnal Green, I think I can offer to agree. The assessable value of Bethnal Green is £500,000 and that of Kensington, £2,500,000. Kensington, therefore, has some advantage. A penny rate levy in Kensington brings in something like £10,000. A penny rate in Bethnal Green brings in only £2,500. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are in so bad a position as he imagines. If the hon. Member again explores the question of local government, perhaps he will investigate a little closer the advantages of the area which he represents. In one part of Kensington there is a great deal of poverty, and there are very bad slums, which are a disgrace to the Royal borough. I hope that the Royal borough will soon take the opportunity of clearing them away. Although there are some very poor areas in the
borough, Kensington is fortunate in having some magnificent streets, some very prosperous districts, and some of the most valuable buildings in London.
6.0 P.M.
We have had a good deal of discussion about Poplar on this Bill. That is not the fault of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, because we know that he is a very modest man. It would be most unfortunate if the House or the country got the impression that the only area in London that had to struggle for its existence was Poplar. Poplar is by no means the poorest. It is fortunate in having within its area large railways and docks, and very big warehouses. As a matter of fact, the poorest area in London is the district which I represent, namely, Bethnal Green. There is in that district no great industry; it is an area of thousands of small houses and hundreds of small factories, eking out a very difficult existence in very difficult circumstances, and although I congratulate the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley on the splendid advertisement he has secured for his district, I ask the House not to be prejudiced by that advertisement, and not to form their conclusions solely on what we have heard about that particular area. The whole basis of London government as regards Poor Law is thoroughly unsound, and I am rather disappointed by the speech of the Under Secretary to the Ministry in introducing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that he proposed to extend the term to 1926—"with a view to preventing any further legislation for some time." That seems to suggest that the Government, like other Governments before them, are going to shelve the problem; that they are going to glide over the difficulty by the bad expedient of temporary legislation. Anyone who listened to the Debate must have noticed that from whatever point of view hon. Members approached this subject, all were agreed on the necessity for drastic changes in the Poor Law system. Hon. Members may have been biased in different ways, in approaching the problem, but they were in unanimity to that extent, and I think if we survey the problem without prejudice we will find that there is substantial agreement. We are all progressing along very much the same lines as to the need for removing the blot on our social system of a Poor Law no longer suited to our requirements.
I ask the Minister of Health not to be diverted from the important problem of changing our Poor Law system, because of the ease with which he gets this particular Bill through Parliament. I may remind the House of how the parent Act came to be passed. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has already made reference to it. A sudden increase of unemployment took place, and Poplar, Bethnal Green and a number of the poorer districts had to face an impossible burden. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and his friends took the drastic action of refusing to pay a London County Council rate, levied by precept—the various boroughs having to collect the central rate. They went to prison, and there was a deadlock. It looked as though they would have to stay there indefinitely. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the band played."] Yes, the band played.

Sir K. WOOD: And they apologised.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Has the hon. Member the right to state that we did something which in fact we did not do?

Mr. HARRIS: I am not surprised that the recital of these occurrences arouses emotions and memories of different kinds. In any case I would point out to the House the serious aspect of this matter. This drastic action proved effective. It is not the kind of thing of which I approve, but direct action in this case achieved its purpose. It forced the hands of the Minister and the Minister—Sir Alfred Mond—had to call a conference of the London boroughs at which a makeshift scheme was patched together. It was not a satisfactory scheme. No-one was satisfied with it, but the situation was urgent and we were anxious to see outside the prison gates once more the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for North East Ham (Miss Lawrence), of whose services we on the London County Council had been deprived. We were so anxious to have them back that we were unanimous in adopting the scheme as a temporary measure, and as such it was introduced by Sir Alfred Mond in consequence of the direct action to which I have referred. The Measure went through Parliament with the active co-operation of all parties. All sides condemned legislation of this kind. They said it was unsound
in principle, that it offended against the constitutional law and went against the theory of no taxation without representation by handing over money from one district to another, but the Measure went through because of the pressure of direct action. It was deliberately passed to be of one year's duration only. Now we are repeating this temporary Measure from year to year, and it is proposed here that it should be prolonged until 1926. That will give the impression outside this House that if any better legislation is to be looked for, direct action must be resorted to again.
A doctrine of that kind is most unfortunate and is to be deplored. It points the high road to anarchy, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will agree. There may be occasions so serious as to render necessary an evasion of the law or a breaking of the law, but the proper course is to prevent the possibility of such occurrences. I suggest to the Minister that it would be unfortunate, should the idea be spread abroad that this Government is too timid to face the problem with imagination and bring in fresh legislation dealing not only with London but the whole country; dealing with unemployment not as a local but as a national subject, and dealing with it not on the basis of relief but on the basis of a better organisation of trade and industry and improved machinery of insurance. I go further and say I should like to see this Bill only extend the period for one year. That would strengthen the Minister's hands. We know there is great competition among Government Departments for the time of this House, and great pressure upon a Minister to earn fame by placing on the Statute Book a Measure associated with his name. If the Ministry of Health is not to be crowded out, the right hon. Gentleman should be in a position to say to the Prime Minister, "This matter is urgent; the present legislation expires in 1925, and if we do not have a Measure dealing with the subject we shall have to face the criticism of the House of Commons." I am sure that would enable the right hon. Gentleman to take the problem in hand on a proper scale and on lines of general agreement. The Poor Law stands condemned ever since 1909. I have here the words used in the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. I deliberately avoid
quoting the recommendations of the Minority Report because they are so much associated with the President of the Board of Trade that they might be suspect with hon. Members opposite, but the Majority Report bears the signature of Lord George Hamilton, who is approved of by all Conservative Members, and this was a Royal Commission appointed by a Conservative Government. The Report states:
The case for the abolition of the board of guardians has been more conclusively demonstrated in London than in any part of the Kingdom. The first reform necessary in our judgment is the total abolition of the present boards of guardians and the establishment of a unified London for all purposes of public assistance. The charge upon a common poor fund, the disbursements made by the county council to the separate boards of guardians and the expenses of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, in the aggregate amount to over 70 per cent. of the whole Poor Law expenditure in London. The transfer of the remaining 30 per cent. to a common fund would, we believe, be economical to London as a whole.
That was in 1909, and I would say to the Minister of Health to-day: Do not evade the problem, but make clear to Parliament and the nation that the present Measure is only temporary. Make clear to the nation that it is unsound in principle, and in the end bound to lead not only to extravagance but general suspicion. I am not one of those to take up a serious attitude in regard to what is called Poplar administration, because I know how difficult the problem is when you have streets of men out of work and no industry to absorb them. There are areas where there are no works and no wealth with which to give relief, and the pressure on the guardians to give assistance is immense In London it is very difficult to trace the history of the applicant, and if you inquire too closely, only too often it leads to the very men who are most deserving not getting any assistance at all. It is the system which is wrong, and the evil can only be cured by breaking up the system; by changing the whole basis of our attitude towards unemployment, and following the principles now recognised by Parliament of dealing with it on national lines through insurance, rather than on local lines through Poor Law guardians.

Miss LAWRENCE: This is a very interesting discussion and I congratulate hon. Members below the Gangway on having returned to their earlier love. I have not heard so much talk about London reform since the brave old days of 1904 and 1905. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has forgotten that he spoke on London Government and characterised it as "clotted chaos." I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the long history of thos matter, and that hon. Members below the Gangway have forgotten how in 1903, 1904 and 1905 the London representatives clamoured, as they are clamouring now, against the intolerable system of London government against the burden and inequality of the rates and against the complicated nature of the administrative machinery. Hon. Members below the Gangway had power—unlimited power—in the years 1907 and 1908. What was done? Nothing whatever. Then came that great Commission on the Poor Law in 1909 and 1910. When had hon. Members a nobler field for reform than in the years 1910 and 1911? I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley. I heard him use the phrase "clotted chaos"—a very good phrase—descriptive of London government, and I reflected that during all those years when something might have been done, hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway preserved the attitude of Olympian gods, while they calmly and peaceably contemplated the chaos. The only Liberal achievement in connection with London government during all those years was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He did something. He added another clot to the chaos. He saddled us with one more of those ad hoc, undemocratic, anomalous bodies, the Port of London Authority, and now my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is attacked, forsooth, for bringing in for another short period this temporary Measure.
I was one of those who had, I suppose, a good deal to do with putting this Measure on the Statute Book, but none of us ever considered it otherwise than as a temporary expedient, and an expedient contrary to sound canons of local government. It is perfectly true in local government, as in national government,
that those who pay the piper should call the tune, and it is a grievance that the expenses of Poplar, Bermondsey, Woolwich and the poorer districts should be levied on other areas who have no voice whatever in the management of those districts. That is a real and serious local difficulty, but were we guilty? It was hon. Members opposite who passed the first Act. It was Sir Alfred Mond who passed this Emergency Provisions Act, by which he met a temporary financial crisis. It is called temporary, but it is an eternal crisis, surely, because ever since 1900 those connected with Poplar have pointed out that under every administration, and for every purpose, the rates of Poplar were about double those of Westminster.
This business of the inequality of rating is one which has continued ever since the borough councils were established, and long before that, when the vestries existed, when the Poor Law unions of London were first set up. This is a grievance which has continued ever since London was London. People may say that the Poplar Board of Guardians are extravagant, but I would point out to them that the Poplar Borough Council was under Moderate management until 1919, and that during the whole of that time, with a population substantially the same as that of Westminster, whose expenses were considerably less, the rates of Poplar during those long years were about double those of Westminster. The poorer districts of London are cruelly overburdened on account of their poverty, and that was the meaning of the crisis three years ago, when Sir Alfred Mond, to meet a temporary emergency, passed this Act. Ever since then, we in London, and particularly we who represent Poplar, have gone on deputation after deputation to the existing Minister of Health, imploring him to do away with this mere temporary Act, which, undoubtedly, inflicted a severe grievance on the other parts of London, and to reform the Poor Law in London.
I think we went to all the previous Ministers of Health. We certainly went—I went myself—to the last Minister of Health, and we then put before him the claims for the reform of the Poor Law. I remember that I spoke myself. I did not speak in anger to the right hon. Member, but I really spoke more as a friend.
I said to him that he, or any other Minister of Health, who chose to deal with this question could deal with it substantially by consent, and that there was no task more important and, for its size, less contentious than that of putting the Poor Law of London and the local government of London on a proper basis. We obtained from him no word of encouragement at all. This was at a time when there was every probability that hon. Members opposite would be in power for five years, but we could get no definite promise or assurance, we could not even get a sort of adumbration that the Government was considering the matter of the reform of the Poor Law in London.
After all that, after our experience of neglect by the Liberal administration during all those years, with our experience of the hand-to-mouth action of the Coalition Government, with our experience that that conduct was continued by the followers of the Coalition Government, and that, we could get no word of hope or encouragement, then, I think, it is rather too much to come and load all the sins of the past 20 years, all the sins of Sir Alfred Mond, all the sins of the late Government, on the shoulders of the new Minister of Health. I am quite sure that he will do what he can in this matter, as speedily as possible, but I say that if he said and did nothing whatever, he would be doing no more than repeating the sins of both the other parties ever since the year 1909.

Mr. KEDWARD: I think everyone will agree that it is necessary to pass this Measure in order that the poorer boroughs of London may be saved from chaos and bankruptcy. The hon. Member for North-East Ham (Miss Lawrence) has passed some rather severe strictures on the Liberal party, but she was rather forgetting that on the Government Front Bench at the present moment are a number of people who were previously in the Liberal party, and who also come under her very severe censure.

Mr. LANSBURY: They are saved now.

Mr. KEDWARD: We shall be glad to see what they are going to produce now that they have changed. The hon. Member for East Ham said that we Liberal Members below the Gangway had contemplated all this chaos and poverty in London for all those years, and had
made no attempt to do anything whatever. Has she forgotten that it was a big attempt, and an attempt which the present Government are, at the moment, trying to extend, to give old age pensions? Was it not the Liberal party that grappled with the poverty of the old people and brought the old age pensions in during those years, and dealt with health insurance and unemployment insurance? Surely, she is not unmindful that at the present moment her party can produce nothing better than to extend these excellent Measures. They have passed endless resolutions, and deputations have followed deputations to Ministers and other places, and we were expecting to-day that the Minister would indicate to us what was their scheme for dealing with this very difficult and complicated problem, but we have been given no scheme. We are put off again with an extension of an Act passed by previous Governments.
I have been watching here, for the last few weeks, to see whether this Government were capable of originating even a thought, but they have not originated anything yet. The only thing they have been able to do is to pick up the Measures which have been carried by other Governments, and to extend them for the time being, but always saying, like the conjuror, "You wait; we shall produce something presently." We are getting a little, bit tired and weary of waiting, and I am very sorry that the Minister indicated that this was to be extended, and could hold out no hope that we were going to have any serious attempt to grapple with this very big question. Does he understand that this is going to leave things precisely as they are? In one borough—in every borough, probably—you have this kind of thing: On the right-hand side of the street a man will be able to go to a generous board of guardians and draw a fairly full allowance, and the people on the other side of the street, who happen to be in another borough, will be able to draw only half the amount; and you have that kind of thing repeated all over the place. There has been a great deal said about the extravagant boards of guardians, but I would like the Minister to turn his attention also to those boards of guardians that do not give sufficient to enable the people to maintain a decent
position. There are some scales of relief which are an absolute scandal and disgrace, and which keep the people in abject poverty, but we want to keep the middle way. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) mentioned the case that I gave to this House the other day, and he seemed to suggest that no case of that kind was possible.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. The only point was that the House and myself, when the hon. Member put the case, thought it was an actual case in Poplar, and it was so reported in the Press. It was only to correct that, and not what may be; nobody knows what may be.

Mr. KEDWARD: Yes, but it was an actual case in existence. Make no mistake about that. The conditions were there.

Mr. LANSBURY: At Poplar?

Mr. KEDWARD: Wait a minute. They were there in connection with another board of guardians, and all that I did was to apply the Poplar scale. All that I did was to take the White Paper and, with the clerk to our board of guardians, carefully to apply the Poplar scale, which he verified, to that case that was in existence, and the hon. Member will not deny the facts as set out. He will not deny that if the Poplar scale were applied, it would come to exactly the figures I mentioned.

Mr. LANSBURY: But it was not applied, and that is the point.

Mr. KEDWARD: The hon. Member was defending, in this House, a particular scale of relief, and he asked if anybody had the face to get up and challenge it. I challenged it, on the ground that it was grossly unfair to the thousands of working men in London who were having, through their rents and rates, to pay, in order to keep the people in Poplar in that way. [Interruption.] I want to say something else. Does the Minister of Health know that among various boards of guardians the collection of money varies altogether—that is, the repayment of relief given? Take a board like that in Bermondsey. If a man has been denied his unemployment pay for a number of weeks, if it has been deferred,
and he could not get it for some reason, probably there has accumulated £5 or £6 back pay, and in Bermondsey the board of guardians claims that, and gets it direct from the Ministry. In the meantime, they have been giving the man the weekly allowance on the guardians' scale. In Poplar, I understand, the thing is quite different. A man has applied for his unemployment pay, but it has not come through, and it has accumulated. Now the guardians at Poplar do not claim that unemployment pay, which it has given to the man in a lump sum, say £4 or £5, and Poplar guardians may discontinue the relief, but they make no claim on that at all.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the hon. Member attaches that question to this Bill. This Bill does not make any difference to that question one way or the other. The point he is now raising would seem to be more appropriate on the Minister's salary.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. This is really a point of Order, because if this statement goes out in the Press to-morrow, as a previous statement went out, it is not fair. The statement is, that the Poplar Guardians do not take back that money from the person who has got it. We do take the money back, and we take it all into account, whether it is in a lump sum or by the week.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that now we may come to the actual proposals in this Bill.

Mr. KEDWARD: I was only going to point out that if this money which is due to the guardians, £5 or £6, were used, it would make a very great difference to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. I was using it as an illustration, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley must agree that Mr. Cooper, in his Report, instanced definite cases where the Poplar Guardians had made no attempt whatever to collect these sums.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. It is not true. I deny those statements.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. LANSBURY: It is all very well to get excited.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am called to Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: We must now proceed to the contents of this Bill.

Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. What remedy has a Member if another Member makes false statements against another person or another local authority?

Mr. SPEAKER: The remedy is what I have just allowed. I have allowed the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to make his denial.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And not only that, but he has done it very well!

Mr. KEDWARD: I was hoping that the Minister would have given us some promise or held out some hope of a larger measure of the equalisation of rates in London. I have not a great deal of sympathy with some of the contributing powers that have put their difficulties before this House this afternoon and suggested how generous they really are. But we must remember that in Westminster, at any rate, a penny rate produces something like £34,000, while a penny rate in Bermondsey produces £4,000, and a penny rate in Poplar £3,500. When a penny rate produces such a huge amount, it does not mean a very heavy burden to those contributing it. Again, you are faced with this fact, that a large number of the people who work in the city and at Westminster do not live there. They come out to Bermondsey and Poplar, and the moment you dismiss them from a city office they come into our borough and ask for relief. Therefore I think that really this cost ought to be borne by the whole of London. I hope the Minister will give some undertaking to set up later a central Poor Law authority for London who will deal with these matters, and also bring about a statutory relief based on a generous scale, and so do away with the many difficulties against which we now contend.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think the House will expect me to occupy more than a few minutes in view of the very important business to which I have no doubt hon. Members are anxious to pay some little attention; but a number of
criticisms have been made on the Bill and inquiries have been put as to what it all means. We have been told that it does not settle the question of the necessitous areas. We have been told that it does not settle the difficulties of London administration; that it does not settle the equalisation of the rates, the incidence of taxation, and—particularly—it does not abolish Poplar. If within the four corners of this little Measure it settled all those questions, there would be no necessity to keep the present Government in power until 1926 in order to clear up the mess of its predecessors. Notwithstanding, however, the flattering references which have been made to the capacity of the Minister of Health and the Government in general, I fear, even with the cordial co-operation and the utmost sympathy of this House, I could not have settled all those problems in the few Clauses that compose this very little Measure, to which I now ask the House to give a Second Reading.
May I just, in a few words, reply to some of the questions that have been put to me? First of all in regard to the question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) as to whether we, in this Measure, are including completely Sections 1 and 2. May I say in Parliamentary phraseology that "the answer is in the affirmative." In regard to the question as to how we can control the numbers of persons receiving relief, apart from the amount of relief, I do not know that I could be reasonably expected to do anything here which is not in the existing law. I suppose the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and other Members who make this point, are quite well aware that every payment made by a board of guardians is subject to the approval of the auditor, and if the payment is not justified, then the auditor may disallow the amount. It is then the duty of the Minister of Health to deal with the situation. These and other questions of a similar nature are just the very essence of any terms of reference drawn up for the inquiry that has been proposed. The same thing applies to many other of the questions raised. I sympathise with those who have expressed a desire to see unemployment relief and the ordinary Poor Law entirely separated. I hope, and I can promise this, that, so far as I,
during my period of office can contribute to doing that, I will most willingly and heartily make that contribution.
An appeal has been made to me by a representative from Scotland. It would ill become me to pass over my notes without making some reference to that appeal. I have been reminded of the grave condition of Glasgow. I cannot add much to what I have already said, that Scotland will be the subject of a separate Bill. I have no doubt that if I, in this Measure, had dared to prescribe for Scotland for the next 12 months one of my keenest critics would have been the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). The necessitous area is one of the questions to which reference has been made? I can only say that representations from these areas were put before me by a most influential deputation only a few evenings ago. I am putting these representations before the Cabinet. I will take the decision of the Cabinet on the matter, and that decision will be given effect to in whatever Measure is introduced—in the Measure that we promised at an early date dealing with the greater problem of unemployment. May I claim on behalf of the Government that they have done something in the removal of the gap alone: by that they have given very substantial relief to the necessitous areas. It is not necessary for me to remind the House—because I am sure the majority of Members know as well as I do—that the problem of getting control of the expenditure by limited companies who have to contribute to the fund is a very, very thorny question, and cuts straight down to the fundamentals of our whole system of local government. To have proposed to deal with this next year would have been the maddest possible course for the Government to pursue. All we are anxious to do here is to enable the present Government, seeing that the circumstances have now changed, to continue for a further period the very Conservative policy adopted by our predecessors. I hope that the House, in view of the other urgent business, will now see its way to give this Measure a Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th February]. "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: This Bill covers Measures which Involve an enormous amount of money—in the bulk no less than £91,000,000 sterling—an amount equal to the whole total of revenue of the United Kingdom at the time when most of us entered manhood. I am rather sorry to note that the President of the Board of Trade is not present, although I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary and also the hon. Gentleman representing the Department of Overseas Trade. The President of the Board of Trade might have considered it part of his duty to take part in this Debate in view of the fact that £91,000,000 are at stake. There is no lack of sympathy on this side of the House for this Bill. Many of us took part in earlier Parliaments in discussing the Measures with which this Bill concerns itself, and some of us went to considerable trouble to help the original Bills and then to help the administration of the Acts so that work might be found for our unemployed people. There are two sides to this Bill—the Trade Facilities in the first place, and the Export Credits in the second. I should like to deal first with the Trade Facilities side.
There are three particular criticisms which I should like to lay before the House on the trade facilities side, and then I will deal with the export trade side of the Bill. When the Export Credits Bill was introduced some years ago, I said that I did not think the Bill was likely to do much good, nor, I added, was it likely to do much harm. After having taken part in the administration of the Act by working in the Export Trade Act Committee which looks into the details of schemes put forward, I think I may say that events have shown that my forecast was justified. The Measure has not done much good and little or no harm, but it has done one other thing. It has, however, taught me certain lessons which I should like to put before the House. As I said, the trade facilities side of the Bill has to meet three criticisms. One of these is a minor point. I refer to the principle laid down
in Clause 2 of the Bill, which in paragraph (c) states that
the Treasury may, subject to the provisions of this section, undertake to pay to the said Government an amount not exceeding three-quarters of any interest payable in the first five years of the currency of the loan in respect of such portion of the loan as is to be expended in the United Kingdom, so, however, that the amount payable by the Treasury under this section shall not exceed one million pounds in any one year or five million pounds in all.
May I say I do not like the idea of making a present of a good portion of the interest to the Dominions without our getting back some compensation by a funding process? I am quite eager to support the principle of helping the Colonies and Dominions in their development and in the development of our great overseas estate, but their debts for unpaid interest should be funded so that we may get at any rate a capital asset back to the Treasury which may or may not be valuable as years go on. This point should not be lost sight of in the possible success of projects when they have been brought to fruition owing to our financial support.
There is another principle which I should like to see examined. The question has been raised as to the increase of the amount to £65,000,000, from £50,000,000 already authorised. I believe that only £38,000,000 have been used, leaving £12,000,000 of the original £50,000,000. I am perfectly willing to accept what the Financial Secretary may have to say on this matter, but I should like to know what has happened to that £12,000,000 which have not yet been expended. Is it promised and not yet taken up? And what is it to be used for?
What then about the other £15,000,000? We have been put, as the lawyers say, on inquiry, and we have seen something happening during the last few weeks which makes us wonder whether the Government are going to use that money for the guarantee of loans for the building of merchant ships. I know as well as anyone in this House that the shipbuilding trades are badly off, and I am perfectly willing to do what I can possibly do here to help them, but there is a way of helping, and there is a way of hindering. We may do more harm to shipbuilding than good if we proceed along certain lines. No White Paper has been sent to us, though I do not press that very much—but we know nothing from up-to-date
official information as to what this £50,000,000, which has been already voted, has been devoted. There were statements in the newspapers to the effect that the trade facilities guarantees had been used in various ways, from time to time. I hope the Financial Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade will issue a White Paper telling us how the details of the matter stand to date so that when we go into Committee hon. Members may know where they are and where the guarantees have gone, in relation to this Bill now under debate. I want to know whether this fresh £15,000,000 will go in whole or part into guarantees for mercantile shipbuilding. We have seen the Bank Line prospectus. The names of Messrs. Harland and Wolff and Messrs. Weir appear in it. They are two firms which are second to none in the respect in which they are held by everyone, and their credit is as high as that of any firm's credit in this country. There are no firms of whom we can say their credit is better or more Highly regarded by their fellow countrymen. They do not need to go to the Government to assist them to borrow money. Everyone is glad to lend them money. If they cannot borrow from the public £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 on their own account, then I say British commercial credit has gone to pieces. Of course they can borrow quite easily. Why do they come to ask for assistance under the Trade Facilities Act? Is it because they can get money slightly cheaper, so that they might save one and a half or 1 per cent. interest?
Am I going to be told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that these ships would not be built unless the Government put their name on the back of the paper for these issues? Is 1 per cent. or 1½ per cent. the whole crux? I think there must be some other reason why these firms have been eager to impress their views upon the authorities to get the Government to back their paper for these issues. I certainly do not say this in any unworthy sense. Perhaps it has been a clever bit of business, and they think that they will get this money with the Government's signature behind them more cheaply than without it, and that in competition they will be able to sell the ships more easily. These are not times when shipowners should play the game of "beggar my neighbour," because the shipping trade is too bad for that. We
have been told that at the present moment not less than 1,000,000 tons of British shipping is laid up. I doubt it. But certainly there is 600,000 tons. In these conditions it is no use building, competitively, more mercantile ships, and it is short-sighted putting more ships on the water until much of that idle 600,000 tons has been dealt with. By adopting now a building policy you are only putting more ships on a crowded market. Already you have a freight market which cannot absorb the shipping now in existence, and yet you are helping to build more ships. I think we ought to wait until that 600,000 tons of idle shipping has gone down to about 300,000. As a matter of fact, it would pay the shipowners to sell all that shipping at whatever price they can get for it, and it would be better still if they broke it up.
While these new subsidised ships are being built, what will happen? You keep down the freight rates, and you discourage shipbuilders from building ships as a speculation if they think that the Government will come along and help other shipbuilders to build more competing ships. Under those circumstances speculators will refuse to build any more ships, and the new competition keeps existing tonnage from earning a living. I have refrained from putting down an Amendment to exempt mercantile shipping from the benefits of this Act until the unused shipping had fallen to 300,000 tons for fear my action might be misunderstood, but after what I have said, I hope the authorities will bear in mind that they will probably, by subsidising mercantile shipping at this juncture, do the men we want to help more harm than good, and I want to help the shipyard men. For many years we have had to face the competition of American shipping. I think it is very foolish for the Government, by a policy of guaranteed loans, to be parties to the subsidising of shipping here, because it gives the owners of American shipping an excuse for saying, "Why should the American Government refuse to help by subsidy United States Mercantile Shipping in face of the fact that it has to compete with subsidised British shipping?" This only gives them a handle to induce the American Government to subsidise their shipping. We could not compete with shipping which was subsidised by the American Government, with
all its immense resources of wealth behind it. At the present moment some of their railways are granting certain advantages in their export freights if they go in American bottoms. I do not think we ought to give any excuse for other countries to subsidise their shipping, because if they do it will only injure us in the long run. I think that fact should be borne in mind when we are considering State guarantee of loans for British shipowners to build more ships.
I wonder why that view has not been taken by the British Treasury, It seems to me to be such a short-sighted policy to allow all these ships to be put into the water when we do not know what to do with our out-of-commission ships at the present time. I do not want to pursue the point of shipping any longer, but I hope those who are connected with the shipbuilding yards will lend me what aid they can by expressing their opinions in support of what I have said. A point was made last week by the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson), who argued that the Trade Facilities Act should be used to assist home railways to electrify their lines. I think this is a very foolish argument to urge upon the Government. I disagree entirely that home railways should be assisted under the Trade Facilities Act until we have exhausted possibilities of trade in the export channels. If we spend money electrifying railways, it is like taking in each other's washing. Our real object should be to stimulate our foreign trade in order to add to the wealth of the country. How can you justify the lending of this credit to the railways except on the ground that it will benefit the steel industry? And that only means that you transfer funds from railway pockets into steel or engineering pockets. You do not add to our wealth. This guarantee of money ought to be used to extend the productive power of our Dominions, and there is plenty of ways to use it in that direction. The profits of the export trade add to the ability of all home services to prosper and extend—such as the electrification of home railways—besides adding to our wealth. Let us use our trade facilities Act to help, primarily, export trade, and not primarily home enterprises whose prosperity depends on the success of our
export trade. Focus on export trade. We ought to concentrate on two or three big schemes, and there is one now before us. I am not now going to deal with the allocation of the profit, and I am only going to deal with the financial side. I mean the development of the Gezireh scheme. It is a triangle of land with its apex at Khartum and its two sides the Bahr el Azrek and the Bur el Gazel. Here is a large area capable of producing 70,000 bales of cotton a year, all of which cotton will not only develop that particular country, but it will bring us business by our supplying the enterprise with equipment. There is another side to the whole matter, the supplement of our cotton supply and the effect over the dollar-sterling exchange. When we take up these projects we should realise that whatever the estimate is, and whatever the amount is we think we shall have to find, we should rest assured that whether we are building a house or taking a holiday we will always spend twice as much as we think we are going to spend. Even when you are building a London County hall the cost turns out to be considerably more than the estimate. We should always bear that in mind when we are dealing with any problem under the Trade Facilities Act, and we must make up our minds that we have to follow our money otherwise we may lose the sums already ventured It is no good tinkering with a thing, and we should bear in mind Disraeli's words; he said, "Damn all half measures." It is no good going into any great national matter with the idea that you are only going to spend a fixed £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, as the case maybe, because you will have to follow up your projects by finding more money for developing undertakings, and in a prosperous concern the capital account is never closed.
I support the view of the Government or rather the view of the last Government that we should go on with these Gezireh undertakings. I see another method of bringing employment to this country which is much better than electrifying the home railways. For the last two days we have been reading about the-Indian Budget and the decision to separate the railway figures from the general revenue figures. It is proposed now by Sir Basil Blackett to separate the railway administration from the general
administration of India. A wise decision in my humble judgment. Here you have some 350,000,000 people, and yet the railway mileage of India is no bigger than it is in the Argentine with 10 million people. Here you have a great opportunity of advancing the prosperity of India by the extension of railway undertakings. [An HON. MEMBER: "By means of loans."] That is so, and with our guarantee under this Bill, but in the case of India railway development you have a good hold on the borrowers. If we give our guarantee to India it is on condition, under this Bill, that she takes the goods paid for by the loans, from us. What a splendid thing it is to be able to extend the railways in India because there is no greater civilising influence in any country than the extending of communications except the extension of the art of reading and writing. In this direction the extensions of rail and river services and canals have done more than anything we can think of, and you have now an opportunity of helping India, improving the condition of her people and at the same time, in due course, of putting money into your own pocket by extending the railway equipment of India. Directly you make India more prosperous, she has more produce to sell, and will be able to buy more, and if she does not buy from us she buys from somebody else. We get our share, if not by direct or triangular exchange, we get it even by polygonal exchange. Take the case of the Cautley Canal on the Ganges, the Chenab and Jhelum canals. Those three canals have been working beneficially and profitably in certain portions of Northern India. Let us go on with that policy for India and for our unemployed at home. That is how and where to use the guarantees under this Bill.
7.0 P.M.
Railways and canals have rendered famine half as deadly to the Indian people as it was before. Indian railway and irrigation schemes should be our first policy under this Bill. It is all nonsense talking about the electrifying of lengths of lines here, and taking in our own washing, when you have got India in front of you and when, to help to develop the railways of India benefits not only us but the India people as well. I would go further, and say I would help Nyasaland, Rhodesia and even certain parts of
Australia to extend the growth of cotton and tobacco. That is why I would help the Gezireh project quite apart from the private profit. The more we can reduce the immense amounts we have to pay America for cotton and tobacco, by so much do we reduce the one-way strain on the dollar exchange. When you reduce the strain on the dollar exchange, the sterling value of the dollar goes up, you get more cents and more dollars for your pound and the result is, that every mouthful of food which comes here from America goes into cur people's houses at a cheaper rate than it does now. I would stimulate production of cotton and tobacco in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and I would do the same in Australia. But I want to warn the House that if we are going to help Australian Governments or Australian settlers with guarantees of loans for development, we must bear in mind that we do not lend our credit for projects coming under the Land Act of Queensland of 1920. That Act is a very dangerous Act and until it can be repealed, readjusted or put on a basis which we in this country consider an honest basis, I should advise no man to venture lending any of his money to the Queensland Government, and the British Government should risk no money for enterprises in Queensland. The Premier of Queensland is over here to-day seeking to renew loans for £24,000,000, which the people of this country lent to Queensland. He will not get a bob as things now stand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] These loans have been floated by the Queensland Government at 5, 4, 3½ and 3 per cent. They are not held by the bankers. That is the fallacy of hon. Members opposite. Bankers do not hold these loans. They are held by innumerable small investors and little men in this country. Nearly every man in this House, especially my hon. Friends on the other side, hold small life policies in various life insurance companies. These companies invest in Colonial Loans, and if these Colonies break faith or anything goes wrong, hon. Members opposite with their little life policies will feel the pinch far more than the bankers.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Has Queensland not paid the interest on the loans previously raised in this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is not the point. The point is that She has now to repay the capital. She has contracted to pay large sums of money in 1924. There is a 3½ per cent. and a 4 per cent. loan which she contracted to repay in 1924, and she can only pay it by re-borrowing from us But we say to Queensland "you have broken faith with the pastoral settlers in Queensland," and when Queensland comes here to re-borrow money to repay that £24,000,000, Mr. Theodore, the Premier, will see that he will have to say "I will either play an honest game or I shall be obliged to default on my obligations."

Mr. MILLS: Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the Premier of one of the Dominions as a dishonest person? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, the hon. Member did so by implication.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was criticising the policy of a Dominion. That, I think, is an undesirable thing to do in this House, and on that ground I would ask the hon. Member not to pursue the subject.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will not pursue it, Sir, in deference to your ruling, but in not pursuing it I would like to make this reservation, that if we have to put money down to help in the extension of our national estate I would ask hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench opposite, who have to decide such matters, that they should look askance at lending credit for money which is to go to Queensland while the practice of breaking contracts is countenanced.
I would like to refer now to Clause 3, and I hope the House will forgive me if I take some little time, because I think I am now the only Member of the House who has taken part in administering the Export Trade Acts. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said the other night that the National Manufacturers' Union had asked him that the Act should be brought more vividly before the imagination of the public, that it should be brought more to the notice of people. I think it was also said by the Financial Secretary that it was asked that some arrangement should be made to help Russian trade under this scheme. Another hon. Member said that the little man must be helped, and that some people who applied for the help of these loans failed
in their applications because they were afraid of disclosing their financial interests to their trade competitors. That, I think, was said by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Franklin). What does the hon. Member know of the administration of the Act? He has never been present at the working of the Committee. So far as I know, he has never been present at any of its meetings, and to say that the little man has not been helped or that we are not willing to help the little man is simply untrue. It was not right to make such statements. They only made people think the Committee is not doing its work well and cause people not to go to the Committee, whereas the real truth is that when a man comes and puts a proper proposition before the Committee, if he will come along with a proposal for only £10 worth of help. We undertake, if the proposition be a sound one, to see the thing carried through. Nor is it right to say that a man will not come to us because he does not like his affairs to be seen by his competitors. What competitors? I have attended the work of the Committee week after week. It is a mistake to suppose that this Committee is composed for the most part of others than bankers. There are only two non-banking members of the Committee, their names have only to be mentioned to command universal respect and confidence. These are all I have ever seen. One is Mr. Stanley Machin, a past chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce, a man of proved experience, public spirit, and discretion. The other is Sir William Pearce, a man who is held in the highest respect, and by everyone who knew him when a Member of this House, and a third man is myself. The other members are connected with the great banks and discount houses. The very men the public turns to normally.
When a man comes to us, we try with the best will in the world to help him and to do everything we can to carry through any sound proposition which he has submitted to us, however small the sum involved. If a man thinks he can get an order for £50,000 or £100,000 he goes to his bank and says, "I have the opportunity of offering to sell to a State or railway company abroad, or to a firm abroad, railway material, or textiles, or pen holders, or whatever the goods may be, to the total of £50,000, and I shall
get bills and be paid for them in three or six months. I have £10,000 of my own, can you help me?" The banker says, "We know you, we know the people you are going to deal with, and we will give you the necessary facilities." If they do give him those facilities, the proposition does not come on from the bankers to us. The money which is lent by these banks is not, as some hon. Members seem to think, the money of the shareholders, it is the money of the depositors. Take Lloyds Bank, Lloyds has perhaps £350,000,000 or £400,000,000 deposits, That money does not belong to the shareholders. The shareholders have about £10,000,000 of capital, and £10,000,000 reserves. The rest of the money belongs to the depositors, and the banks must lend that money in such a way that they can get it back when the depositors want it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is rather discursive. If his example be followed by Members on the other side of the House, I do not know to where we shall get.

Mr. SAMUEL: I would like to explain my reason to you, Sir, for being thus discursive. We were told that the reason for unemployment was that manufacturers and merchants cannot get credit. I am trying to show that it is not the case so far as the Export Credits Act is concerned. There is credit under that for long periods and the banks give all the credit for short periods that is wanted. What credit they cannot give, is because too long dates are required, for banks must so have the money for which they are trustees that it will be there when the depositors require it back. In those long dated cases traders come to us under the Export Credits Act, and say to us: "Help us to carry through certain commitments for which we need long credit." I have got the figures here: Up to February, 1925, we sanctioned £18,000,000 to help unemployment. Of that £18,000,000 only £8,000,000 has been taken up. The other £10,000,000 has been cancelled or lapsed. It is therefore not true to say that there is no credit, at any rate, so far as the Export Credit Act is concerned. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that there is plenty of credit, it is granted after application and examination, but the orders are not coming in to use it, and so it lapses or is cancelled. The firms fail
to secure orders. Lack of credits is not to blame as a cause of lack of employment. That is the great lesson we have learned in connection with this Act. I would explain to the House why, as it seems to me, out of the £18,000,000 we sanctioned, because we thought that prospects were good, only £8,000,000 was taken up. These projects come to us through the banks, as the length of credits asked for cover too long a period for the bank to be able to handle. The security is to be assumed to be satisfactory. The Committee look at them, and we say, "Yes, you, Messrs. A. B. C. and Company, say you can sell £10, or £1,000, worth of shoes, or penholders, or bridges, and we will help you through. Go and get the orders." Having heard from us that they can get accommodation, they go abroad and try to get those orders, but they often fail; and who will make goods if he cannot sell them, or borrow if he has no orders? Why do they fail? The credit is there, but there are no orders We are there to help under the Act, the goods can be made, everything in this country is at their disposal, but the orders do not come in. That is the lesson that we learn from these figures. Unemployment will certainly not be remedied by an increase of credit. The necessary credit is there; inflation of credit to remedy unemployment will not get orders.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the hon. Member say why the orders do not come in? He has left us suspended in mid-air at the point where we are most interested.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will tell the House why it is, in my opinion, but I hope hon. Members opposite will not be impatient with me. Recently a quotation from this country, in connection with a lost South African tender, was 30 per cent. too high. Our quality is better than can be obtained anywhere else in the world. Whatever an Englishman sets his hand to he can do better than anyone else. Why was this quotation 30 per cent. too high? I hope hon. Members will be patient if I tell them my honest opinion. The President of the Board of Trade said that we quoted too widely, and it is quite possible that we did. The reason for that is that firms are so afraid that, in the middle of their work, they will be held up by, we will say, disputes, or a rise in cost prices, or something or other which may
put their costs up to such an extent that they dare not cut prices fine. Imagine a man tendering for a bridge at £500,000. Through no fault of his own there may be a dock strike, his goods may be held up and his money may be running away in interest and demurrage, things may be getting spoiled, his materials or coal may not come in, his men may be thrown out from no fault of theirs or his, wages are running along, and interest on capital borrowed from the Government or from the bank. Consequently, he dare not cut his price too fine. The delay in delivery brings penalties and disappointment to the foreign customer who has to wait.

Mr. MACLEAN: What about the strike clause?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is all very well, but when foreign countries buy from us they say, "A fig for your strike clause; we will go where we can get our goods punctually delivered and perhaps cheaper and without any trouble." I am talking about our export trade and export credits.

Mr. MAXTON: Do workers in other countries never strike?

Mr. SAMUEL: The other countries get the orders and often at lower prices than ours. There is another impression which has developed in my mind since I have seen the working of this Act. I mentioned it the other day in reference to the question of Russian trade. If you read the "Arabian Nights" you will find that you cannot get anything done in the East without greasing somebody's palm. When we grant these credits to our firms, our people do not seem to be able to get the orders, for reasons which exist in Russia and in the East. Our traders are confronted with the type of foreign customer who would, if he could, compel our people to descend to methods which we consider degrading, and which we will not touch—methods of corruption. Such a condition of affairs exists not only in Turkey, Persia and the East, but in South America and Central America, and one reads in to-day's newspapers about it elsewhere. One of the reasons why we lose orders which should come to us under the Export Credits Act is that we have to face methods which decent Englishmen will not have anything to do with. I
think the Export Credits Act has certainly exploded the theory that inflation will help to remedy unemployment. Here is a letter which Mr. McKenna wrote to Mr. Strachey with regard to unemployment. He said:
A policy of inflation or deflation should never be adopted, as you justly say, except as a corrective, and the degree of unemployment at any given time will always furnish the test of the right medicine to be applied.
Here you have a test—unemployment is to be the test of whether to apply inflation—but we do not know who will apply the test; Mr. McKenna does not tell us that. He says that inflation of credit or inflation of currency is the medicine for unemployment. We say that no inflation, either of credit or of currency, will help the trouble with which we have to deal, and that is one of the lessons which we have learned. The medicine is: Get the orders. The credit is here already. I have spoken too long, but I should like to say one or two things further on this matter. I think that this letter of Mr. McKenna is proved to be ill-judged by the working of this Act. The Act also proves something else. We are continually told that the re-opening of the Cunliffe Committee's policy and tinkering with the gold standard would put unemployment right, but it proves that inflation of credit is not necessary, because we have enough credit. It also disproves the Cambridge theory, the theory of Mr. Keynes, that a re-fixing of the value of the £1 note might put trade right. Our £1 paper note is worth to-day 101 grains of gold. It should be worth 113. Mr. Keynes suggests that unemployment might be put right if we re-fixed the £1 note at a new rate, say 100 grains. I say there is no necessity for that; it would be better to leave inflation alone if you want to put unemployment right. No, it is orders we want, not inflation; and no debased sovereigns to replace the paper pound.

Mr. SPEAKER: If we went on in that directions we might be led into Bimetallism.

Mr. SAMUEL: I agree that it would not be in order, but it would be an interesting discussion. I shall take an opportunity later on of saying what I wish to say on the McKenna error, and the Keynes or Cambridge theory of the re-fixing of the paper pound value, especially
in connection with unemployment. It is a vast and useful subject. This Bill and its proposals have my sympathy, and will have the sympathy of most hon. Members who sit near me, but we make one or two reservations. I think the Export Credits Act has done good in its way, in so far as it has found work for people, has kept them in good heart and courage, and has kept them from the demoralisation of the dole, which they hate just as much as we do. The £9,000,000 which has been spent has done good in that it has enabled our goods to be put into other countries and kept OUT good will alive abroad, and I see no harm at all in anything that is contained in the Export Credits Act, while the lessons we have learned from it have certainly been valuable. The Trade Facilities Act has also done good, but I wish to say, with all the strength I possess, that I am against any portion of that Act being used for helping the home railways to electrify their branches until the potentialities of our foreign trade are absolutely exhausted. I am also against helping to build mercantile shipping until 300,000 tons of our laid-up tonnage is sold or broken up, or until the shipping industry has got into a better state. I am much obliged to you, Sir, for your leniency in permitting me to talk very widely, and to the House for being so patient in listening to my long speech.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) in his very interesting, though perhaps somewhat discursive, rambles round the world. I imagine he has furnished material for about a dozen Debates. He criticised Mr. Theodore, the Prime Minister of Queensland, and perhaps, somewhat later, we shall see his defence taken up. The hon. Member must be aware that the taxation of the pastoral leases in Queensland was regarded as so popular and honest a measure in Queensland that the Government that did it was returned to power by a hugely increased majority. I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member in his essay on deflation and inflation, nor on most of the other hares that he started, but I observed with considerable interest that, when he came to speak about Clause 4 of this Bill, the Clause which authorises a further guarantee of £3,500,000 to the Sudan Government, or
to the Sudan Plantations Syndicate via the Sudan Government, the hon. Member very carefully said—I hope I do not quote him wrongly—that he would not in any way attempt to justify the finance of this Bill, that he would not in any way attempt to justify the division of the profits.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is not very far wrong, but what I meant to say was that I did not want to deal with that aspect. I did not say I would not justify it; I said I did not want to deal with it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: He did not want to deal with it.

Mr. MACLEAN: He washed his hands of it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: He washed his hands of it, like Pilate of old. Why?

Mr. SAMUEL: Because I know nothing about it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Excuse me, the hon. Member does know something about it. He knows so much about it that he, for one, would not get up in this House and justify it. While refusing to justify the division of the spoils, he proceeded to say—I am not quoting him exactly—that this was going to be a never-ending sink, that we were not finished with the £3,500,000 now being proposed, but that there would be a never-ending demand for fresh capital issues in this Sudan cotton growing scheme. I think the hon. Member said that; I do not profess to be giving the exact words.

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not say it was Government money. I laid it down as an axiom that, with a prosperous undertaking, the capital account ought never to be, and never is, closed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Why should a prosperous undertaking, that can pay a 35 per cent. dividend, come to this House? If it was wrong in the opinion of the hon. Member, that a prosperous concern like Harland and Wolff should get public credits and public guarantees, then, surely, it is equally, if not more, wrong that a concern capable of paying a 35 per cent. dividend to its shareholders should come here for a grant of public money. That is why the hon. Member refused to justify it. No one has yet
attempted to justify it; it is not justified on our own Front Bench. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not justify it. He said that if we were starting afresh—

Sir ROBERT HORNE: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, I do not think there is any proposal at all that the shareholders are to get a 35 per cent. dividend on their capital. The proposal is that the profits which may be made shall be divided in the proportion of 35 per cent. to one section of people, 45 per cent. to the Government, and I forget how the rest is to be shared. There might be only a return of £5, which would be divided in those proportions—35 per cent. of the £5 would go to the shareholders, and 45 per cent. to the Government. There is no suggestion that a dividend of 35 per cent. is going to be paid to the shareholders.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is not so well acquainted with what is going on in the Sudan as he might be. In 1922 35 per cent. was paid to the shareholders in cold cash.

Sir R. HORNE: What shareholders?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The shareholders of the Sudan Plantations Syndicate.

Sir R. HORNE: That is a totally different matter. What we are dealing with now is a barrage which is being built.

Mr. JOHNSTON: This is ostensibly a guarantee given to the Sudan Government. We know that the Sudan Government have passed on the contracts to the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, Limited, and we know that the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, Limited, is already paying 35 per cent. to the shareholders. There is no dispute on that.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am very reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend on the point, but it is important for many reasons that we should be quite clear as to the facts. It is true that in two years in the boom period, round about the time he mentions, 35 per cent. was paid by this syndicate, but I ought to point out that its operations are not confined to this particular enterprise. What the House ought to bear in mind is that, during the 20 years this concern has been operating, the average dividend has been a fraction
more than five per cent., and that was information we were bound to take into account in coming to a decision.

Mr. JOHNSTON: My hon. Friend made that statement when last the Measure was before the House. I am not concerned, and the House is not concerned, and the British taxpayer will not be concerned with what happened 20 years ago. Consider what happened in 1918, 25 per cent. was paid. In 1919, 25 per cent. was paid, in 1920 35 per cent. was paid, in 1921 15 per cent. was paid, and in 1922 35 per cent. It is no interest to me that on an average of 20 years there is 5 per cent., or that 20 years ago they did not make any profit. What we are interested in is that within recent years they are able to make 35 per cent. profit, and they come along here and get a public guarantee through the Sudan Government of another £3,500,000. Last year, when the right hon. Gentleman who was recently Prime Minister, but was then Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, he was evidently of the opinion that the £3,500,000 being proposed then was the last. But we come down a year later and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asks for £3,500,000, and the hon. Member who has just spoken gave the House a very clear indication that this is not the last £3,500,000.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: No. I hope it will not be.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Now we are getting on. Up to date £13,000,000 of public credit has been guaranteed. I do not profess to be a financial expert like the hon. Member.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not mean that they will come to the House for the money, but it is a British undertaking, and I say God bless it, and I hope it will prosper. This £3,500,000 is for a barrage. If the Sudan Plantation's people can raise other millions in England, I hope they will, and so produce more cotton. Neither the hon. Member nor I would say one word against it. We should help them.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope those of us who are not too deeply mixed up in the affairs of high finance will not allow ourselves to be side-tracked. The fact is, that £13,000,000 of public credit has been
guaranteed to this concern, and the hon. Member indicated that there was a possibility of their asking for more.

Mr. SAMUEL: Not public money.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What has not been attempted in the House, nor, as far as I am aware, in the Press, where there is a heavy silence about the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, is to prove that it is possible out of 100,000 feddan, which is all they propose to cultivate, to earn the interest and sinking fund on £13,000,000. I know gentlemen outside the House, who have considerable knowledge of the subject, who declare that it is absolutely impossible. I have made the statement in the House, and it has never been denied, that between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 have already been wasted, and have been sucked up by a man called Alexandrine Is the House aware that the first contract for building this dam was on a 10 per cent. basis of cost? The contractor was to get 10 per cent. on everything he spent, including his wages bill, and it was after the Sudan Government had become aware that this money had been wasted that they cancelled the contract, and paid him a heavy sum in compensation for cancelling it, and came back to this country and got a reputable firm—Lord Cowdray's firm—to undertake the contract from which they had expelled this man Alexandrine. What docs the House know about this £13,000,000? [Interruption.] I do not know what became of Alexandrino. For all I know to the contrary he may be one of the financiers of the war chest of the Liberal party. I want to get to the point raised by the last speaker. It is stated in the Press—in the "Daily News" to be precise of last Saturday, in the financial columns—that the £1 shares of the Sudan Plantations Syndicate are now standing in the market at £7. They have risen 5s since the Debate in the House the other night. A concern whose shares stand on the market at £7 does not seem to me to require the benevolent support of the British Government, particularly of a British Labour Government.

Mr. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Is this matter in any way connected with the Trade Facilities Act? Is it not the case that this Syndicate has nothing whatever to do with any advances made to the Sudan Government for the purpose
of these irrigation works, but is simply a trading syndicate which benefits by it, the same as anyone else in that area?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is a point on which I ought to pronounce.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Every one who knows anything about the subject knows what the facts are. The hon. Member is entirely in error. The other night when this subject was before the House, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared quite frankly that he was willing to give us an inquiry into the three points upon which we were most deeply interested. First, he said he would give us an inquiry into the way the natives had been, and are being, treated in the Sudan, and into the way the natives have been taxed. I wish to ask my hon. Friend to make his promise on this point more precise and more detailed. Would he tell us, for example, if inquiries will be made into the total amount of taxation which these poor natives suffer, and their wages? Is it the case that they pay £250,000 for sugar tax alone? Is it the case that they pay a but tax, and an animal tax—that every animal they have is taxed? Is it the case that they have to pay a crop tax, and that if there are three crops of cotton in the year they have to pay three taxes on the crops? My hon. Friend also said he would give us an inquiry into whether or not it was possible at this late hour of the day to insert in the agreement between the Sudan Government and the Plantations Syndicate a clause compelling the syndicate, which is getting a monopoly in the Sudan, to offer their cotton for sale in the British Empire? I should have thought hon. Members opposite would agree with that. British Empire cotton growing—you are sinking public credit. Would you believe it? The gentlemen who have drafted this agreement, who have poured out the public credit, have no guarantee that a single bale of that cotton, when it is grown, will be offered for sale in the British Empire. A business Government! [An HON. MEMBER: "Why should not America do the same thing?"] I am concerned with the British taxpayer, the British Government, the British House of Commons, and the British people, who are being asked to put up the £13,000,000, and I do I not believe the individuals who are
running the Sudan Plantations Syndicate would offer a single bale to Lancashire if they could get a higher price for it outside the British Empire.
The third point on which we asked for an inquiry was whether or not it was possible, in order to limit the price of cotton, to limit the profits of the Syndicate. If we are handing out public credit why should it not be to something in the nature of a public utility company? If this raw material is essential to one of the vital industries of the Empire, the nation's cotton, why should we not restrict the profits of the monopoly, and treat it like a gas monopoly and allow it to pay no more than a 6 per cent. profit? The Under-Secretary, if I understood him aright, said there would be a difficulty in limiting the selling price of the cotton. What we were after was an attempt to limit the profits the syndicate made from 38 per cent. to 6 per cent., and if possible give the natives and the British consumer of cotton the benefit. I have here a circular sent out by a large firm of stockbrokers in London to potential investors. Dealing with the affairs of the Sudan Plantation Syndicate shares, they say this, dealing with the profit:
The syndicate's 25 per cent. interest can be estimated as over £330,000 per annum. This calculation is based on cotton at 10d. per lb. The present price of Egyptian cotton is 1s. 5½d. per lb. Every 1d. over 10d. per lb. on 100,000 feddans at 300 lbs. per feddan (a conservative estimate) means £31,000 per annum extra profit to the syndicate. The 300,000 feddans are after all only an experimental proportion. The total area possible of cultivation is much greater.
The chairman in his speech at the last annual meeting of shareholders said:
We are to-day only in our infancy.
These people are in control of a new undeveloped land under the British flag. The lives and fortunes of millions of fellow subjects are in their control. Nothing is ever reported to this House as to the treatment of the natives. They do not come under the purview of the Colonial Secretary. It is not a Colony; it is not a Dominion. It is a "Condominium," half controlled by Egypt, which has now got Home Rule and is away from the control of this House, half controlled by some unspecified officials in some unspecified
Department in Whitehall. They have got this huge monopoly. They came last year for 3½ millions, and they come this year for 3½ millions of credit. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) did say most distinctly that this would be a continual call for now credit. If they cannot pay the interest on this 13 millions, I submit that sooner or later the British taxpayer will be called upon to make it good. Before we give this money we ought to have the most rigid inquiry, and the results of that inquiry given to this House.
I do not want to blame our Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There is no necessity for any jeers about it I am willing to go to a division, even if I go alone. I will not have my name, for what it is worth, associated with this. I implore the present Government, before they get in this thing up to the neck, before their hands are stained, to give us this inquiry first. Let them tell us if the Sudan Government's balance sheet balances. Tell us if every charge that the Sudan Government has to meet is in the balance sheet. Tell us if there is a penny of the charges in that balance sheet for military defence, and whether it is because there is no charge for military defence in the balance sheet that the balance sheet is able to balance.
I suggest to hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway, who profess to be keen business men, that it is their business even more than it is ours to demand the most rigid and particular examination of the finances of this Sudan adventure before there is another penny of public credit voted by this House.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I can only speak again in this Debate to-night by leave of the House, and I want to say at once to all Members in all parts of the House that I only rise with great reluctance, because I know there are many who are anxious to take part in the Debate, and that so many have not so far succeeded in doing so. I want to try first of all to reply briefly to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) in regard to the two sections relating to Trade Facilities and Export Credits. With regard to the criticism of the trade facilities part of this scheme, the hon. Member for Farnham drew attention to the payment of a sum equal to three-quarters (that is the maximum figure)
of the interest on any loan raised in this country by the Dominions in order to engage in work of a temporary character. He asked what kind of consideration we were getting in return. I ought to say frankly to the House that there is no return to which we can point in this country in connection with the repayment up to a maximum of three-fourths of the interest which we propose to make. But I would remind the hon. Member that this was a recommendation of the Imperial Conference which was designed to try to help employment in this country and to facilitate the undertaking of work at an earlier date than it would otherwise have been undertaken in the absence of assistance of this kind. I very much hope, if I may speak for myself, that this is only the beginning of certain schemes of co-operation between the Colonies and Protectorates and this country which will help us to undertake useful remunerative work and to provide employment both in this country and in the Colonies and Protectorates themselves. It is important to remember that if we give for a period of five years this sum of three-fourths of the maximum of the interest up to a total sum of one million in any one year and assuming that the loans under that will be raised at about 5 per cent., a sum in the aggregate of £26,000,000 or £27,000,000 will be available for work of this public utility character which, I think it will be agreed, will employ a very large number of men. That is a consideration of importance which we had in mind in supporting this proposal.
My hon. Friend also referred to the guarantee which has been given to certain shipping concerns in Great Britain in order to undertake work and provide employment. It is true to say that out of the £38,000,000, which we have so far placed at the disposal of undertakings by way of guarantees, about £8,500,000 has gone in guarantees to shipping companies. I quite recognise that, from some points of view, that is a large sum, but clearly there was a great deal of distress in shipping centres, and, above all, there was the protection of a very powerful Advisory Committee in this matter, which I have no doubt had before it all the circumstances to which the hon. Member drew attention.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: When the right hon. Gentleman says the Advisory Committee paid attention to the question of whether shipping should be helped, is he right in saying it lay in the power of the Advisory Committee to do anything? Could not the Treasury say, "We do not like this policy. We do not leave it to the Committee. It is not for the Committee to say what the policy is going to be"?

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member knows that the general policy is indicated in the Act of Parliament under which these guarantees are given, but I submit to the hon. Member that it is quite impossible for any public Department to appoint a strong Advisory Committee of this kind and then to tie its hands in the matter of the guarantees which it is going to give. You would not get men to serve under conditions of that kind. We have entrusted to them, with very great success, a large responsibility. Their administration so far is the best proof of the wisdom of our course. I see no reason for departing from that at the present time. The hon. Member also criticised us on the ground that there is nothing to show where the £38,000,000 of guarantees have already gone. On the contrary, fairly complete reports have been presented from time to time to the House of Commons; and let me say that there is available a full list of the guarantees under this Act of Parliament, and I will be delighted to place it at the disposal of any Member who wants to see it, and also to consider if necessary the question of its publication. I will take that into consideration, because it is important that the House-should know exactly what is being done under these guarantees. The hon. Member also suggested that the railway companies do not need these guarantees, and that in any case the provision of the guarantee enables companies to get money on rather cheaper terms. That may be so, but I am not satisfied personally that that is an undesirable thing. I should have thought this policy was in the national interest at the present time, and that to get money for useful purposes on the cheapest terms on which it can possibly be obtained was a good policy. I want to remind the House that this system of guarantees has so far not involved the State in one
copper at all, with the exception of that one loss of rather less than £4,000 in connection with one failure under the Trade Facilities part of this scheme. That should be taken in view when we consider a matter of this kind.
8.0 P.M.
Then the hon. Member said there was little imagination in a Government Department. The practical reply to that is that the questions are really settled by the Advisory Committee, and, as he knows, that is composed of very eminent business men who are not likely to suffer from any lack of imagination. They have a real freedom. They have very wide powers. They are bound by the terms of the Act of Parliament, which I think provide adequate safeguard from our point of view and which confer upon them the maximum freedom to discharge the duty we have entrusted to them. The hon. Member opposes the suggestion to give any guarantee to railway companies in this country. Obviously, of course, under the Act it must be a guarantee in respect of capital expenditure. So far, two guarantees have been given in connection with railway enterprises. I entirely agree that British railway companies as they now exist under the Act of 1921 are a different proposition. As the House knows, they have a formal guarantee of their net revenue of 1913, and they have recourse to the Railway Rates Tribunal in the fixing of rates and charges in respect of the capital expenditure on which they embark or may embark in future. That is a point the House of Commons must keep in view in giving further guarantees to the railway companies. Let me add that any enterprise of a capital character which is put forward is, of course, at perfect freedom to go to the Advisory Committee, and we could not at this stage debar any undertaking from doing so, especially when we look to the provision of employment, provided we are satisfied as to the security and general standing of the concern.
My hon. Friend also asked, Why not concentrate on one or two very large schemes? That, however, would be foreign to the whole policy we have in a Bill of this kind, and I think it would be very undesirable from the point of view of the provision of employment. We
want those guarantees, in so far as they are taken out, to flow out evenly over the whole country. I do not want to sea in the hands of one or two large undertakings a kind of concentration of the guarantee. It is common knowledge at the present day that a very large number of undertakings would not be in a strong position, and the firms would not be able to undertake the work without those guarantees, although they are not debarred from doing so. We must see that the guarantees cover all parts of the country and all kinds of enterprises.
The other part of my hon. Friend's criticism referred to that part of the Bill which is more particularly the province of the Board of Trade. I refer to the Export Credits Scheme. No doubt in the Committee proceedings on this Measure there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss this part of the scheme, and I must leave it to my hon. Friend and other representatives of the Board of Trade to reply. But on one point I might mention that we pointed out on Second Reading that, of the £26,000,000, only about £8,500,000 had originally been taken up. I desire to pay the warmest personal tribute to the work which has been done by the Advisory Committee and other bodies, but I think the difficulty lies in the fact that we have had a great deal of dislocation over which we so far have had very little control. That explains a very great part of the difficulty under the Export Credits part of the scheme. I am perfectly satisfied that any hon. Member taking that into account would probably agree that, while the scheme is not 80 well known as it should be, it is surprising that even £8,500,000 has been taken up, small though that sum may seem to be.
Now I will touch very briefly on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) in regard to the Sudan guarantee. I have already told him, in the clearest language that any Scotsman could use to a fellow Scotsman, that we succeeded to this legislation, that in point of fact we had not an opportunity, as he knows, of considering this in any way as a new proposal, and we had to make up our minds whether, in all the circumstances of the case, we should give this additional guarantee of £3,500,000 or leave the money to be found by some other method by the
Sudan Government and probably run some risk from the point of view of the irrigation of the Gezireh Valley and the supply of the 70,000 bales of cotton for Lancashire which we hope will be available in 1925. That, I think, is the underlying and general consideration which even the strongest of the critics on our side of the House will have to take into account in considering our action. As regards the 35 per cent. earned by the Syndicate during the year 1922, I said to my hon. Friend that there was originally another syndicate before the Sudan Plantation Syndicate came into existence. In point of fact, the operations of the Syndicate are not confined to this particular scheme, although no doubt it is a very large part of their enterprise. It is true that during the two years in question a high percentage was paid, but may I remind my hon. Friend that there is a very great difference between the dividend paid on the nominal capital and on the actual sum subscribed by the shareholders in this Syndicate. If we want to arrive at the facts of the Sudan Plantation Syndicate, between 1904 and 1911, no dividend at all was paid, and, if I remember rightly, that was the state of affairs in 1916. It is a very fair argument to take the average dividend paid on the actual money subscribed by shareholders in this undertaking over the 20 years and see whether, having regard to all the circumstances, they have got anything like an adequate return. The average is just a fraction more than 5 per cent. Although I do not profess to be an authority on what should be considered a fair return, I am bound to say that, everything considered, that is not a very high rate, especially if you look to the considerable risk which at all events over a considerable period was involved in this undertaking in the Sudan.
Let me make it clear that this £3,500,000 is the end of the story as far as the British Government are concerned. That is our final contribution to the guarantee, and the contract, which is timed to conclude in 1925, provides for the overtaking of that work at that date and the planting of the cotton crop as soon as may be thereafter. I see no prospect of any further guarantee being given, but it is our duty now to ask what would happen if we withheld this surviving portion of I £3,500,000. It may be argued that the
Sudan Government might try to raise it themselves. I do not rule out the possibility of their doing so, but let us remember that this guarantee has not so far involved us in one copper of expenditure. If they had to raise it, it would be on terms more onerous than would be the case if we gave the guarantee. It would rebound on the Sudan Government and its finances, and on the syndicate, and have an effect on the £9,500,000 which the British Government have put up. We are bound to look at all the circumstances. I hope I have made it plain that this is the end of the story, and that it will be a matter of business and of ordinary caution to give this guarantee, realising that we will have a return in this country in due course. My hon. Friend says that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 was squandered in the earlier contract. I do not defend the early contract in any shape or form. It was on a cost and percentage basis. The practical point to us is that the contract is no longer on that basis. We now have this on a definite economic foundation, with a guarantee that the work must be overtaken in 1925. That is the practical point for the House of Commons. Let me add on that point that there is a very strong opinion in Lancashire—and it is not confined to one side of politics—that we must get this supply of cotton, and get it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. MAXTON: Do you guarantee that we will get it?

Mr. GRAHAM: We cannot, under the proposal, get any guarantee from the Sudan Government at this stage that the whole of this cotton supply will come to Great Britain. I am not sure that we have the power to compel the Government or the Syndicate to give us such a guarantee, but all the cotton so far raised has come to this country, and, everything considered, I see very little chance of a departure from that policy when the larger supply is available. Questions were asked, but I cannot take time to deal with them now, as to the position of the native, as to his taxation, and other problems of that kind. I certainly believe that the question we have addressed to the Government of the Sudan will bring us the information my hon. Friend desires, and I ask him at this stage, in view of the shortage of the time at disposal, to
leave it at that, on the understanding that we will have a further opportunity of dealing with it at a later stage. I ask hon. Members to bear with me in what is a difficult appeal. The Trade Facilities part of the Act, giving the power to guarantee, expired as from the middle of November last. It is very important that we should get this legislation without delay. We have had considerable discussion on the Financial Resolution. We have had a good deal of debate on Second Reading, the Bill is to be taken in Committee of the whole House, and I make a fair offer to all Members that they will have a full opportunity to discuss the Clauses during Committee stage, and that they will have an opportunity of further discussion during the Report stage and on Third Reading. We are very far behind. A very great deal of employment turns on this Measure, and, in view of the fact that further opportunity for discussion will be available, I ask the House to give us the Second Reading now.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I desire to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and as a Lancashire representative and a member of the Empire Cotton Growing Association, I would like to make some observations on the criticisms which have been offered on the Sudan Clause. The hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has made three or four speeches in this House completely misrepresenting the facts so far as they relate to the position in the Sudan. The loans which have been granted by this House have not been associated with the Sudan Syndicate to the extent of a single pound. They have had no benefit whatever from the expenditure which has been authorised. Not only that, but in the making of their profits they have received no benefit from what the Government have expended in the Sudan. There is not a farthing of the expenditure so far that is productive.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.

Mr. COMPTON: I beg to move,
That, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle that a leving wage for all workers should be the
first charge upon industry, and in view of the large measure of agreement with respect to the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages reached at the national industrial conference, this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day in 1919, constituting a Commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages.
This is a question which has been discussed, not only in the trade union movement, but also in connection with industrial conferences and church movements for many years. It has also been discussed in this House on more than one occasion. It was raised many years ago by the late, hon. Member for Woolwich, and it was again discussed less than 12 months ago on the Motion of the then hon. Member for Bermondsey. At all these Conferences it has been frankly admitted that the right of the worker to a living wage is a legitimate one. During the last few years we have had to face a position in industry of the employers on the one hand, endeavouring to reduce the wages of the workers, and very successfully doing that, and even to-day we have a claim from the employers in certain industries for still further reductions of wages. On the other side, we have the workers insisting, and quite rightly, as I think it will be admitted, that it is impossible for them to maintain their homes at the present none too high standard of comfort, and keep their wives and children properly fed and clothed and themselves assured of a reasonable margin above the bare level of subsistence.
We find it very difficult to reconcile both these claims, that of the employer and the worker, but we can go some way in the direction of reconciliation by the establishment of a legal minimum time rate of wages in the various industries of this country. It may be argued in this House that State intervention is not the best method of regulating wages between employers and employed. I would remind the House that State intervention was forced upon this House by the great anti-sweating agitation with which this country was faced in 1900 and until 1906. As a result of that agitation and State intervention, we have to-day minimum rates of wages legally secured under various Acts of Parliament. We have the Trade Boards Act, the Coalmines Minimum Wage Act, which also makes provision for the protection of wages,
the long-established Truck Act, and in every municipality and public authority in the country we have the Fair Wages Contract Clause. We have also the particular Clauses of the Factory Acts. After all this, we find that at the present time there are a larger number of workers in receipt of less than a living wage than there were in the days when the first Trade Board Act was established. It is rather strange but, nevertheless, it is true.
To give a few instances of what might term less than a living wage, we have today in Manchester, and in the North of England generally, the most highly-skilled worker in the country, the highly-skilled engineer, who, after deductions for insurance, receives in Manchester and that particular district for a 47-hour working week the handsome sum of 53s. Let us assume that this man has a wife and five children to support. He cannot possibly get any kind of house at a lower rent than 8s. a week, and when you deduct that from the 53s. there is left 45s., or for a family of seven about 1s. per day per head to maintain these seven individuals in food, clothing and warmth. The average wage of the unskilled worker in the North is, roughly, about 35s. per week, and when you deduct rent from that wage, there is left for food, clothing and warmth for an average family of five children and man and wife less than 1s. per day per head.
In this House yesterday a statement was made that the agricultural worker was in receipt of only 15s. per week, and a statement was made from the Government Bench that the average wage of the agricultural worker was 24s. a week. I ask the House whether by any stretch of the imagination they could call that a living wage. I ask, further, having regard to instances that I have given of the so-called unskilled worker and the highly-skilled engineer, whether one can say that these men are in receipt of what may be termed a living wage? That well-known authority Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, stated that for a family of five an income of 35s. 3d. per week was necessary even with prices on the 1914 level, if their reasonable needs were to be satisfied. Further, he said that on the 1914 food prices scale a single woman worker could not maintain herself on less than £1 a week, but in actual fact the
great majority of the workers in our country to-day are maintaining themselves, or trying to maintain themselves and their families, on much less than what was laid down by Mr. Rowntree on the 1914 basis.
I have said that the principle of a minimum wage has been generally accepted in trade conferences, church conferences and otherwise. The principle has also been accepted by the very best type of employer in the country, and I want to call the attention of the House to the conference which was called in the Central Hall, Westminster, on 27th February, 1919, by the Prime Minister at that time, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The whole position in regard to wages and working conditions was considered, and also the general state of industry in the country as a whole. That conference which I attended included about 1,000 people. As a result, agreement was reached, and a national committee was formed of 30 representatives of the employers and 30 representatives of the workers. I was elected as one of the representatives of the workers, and I can recall the three weeks of very hard and sometimes acute discussions which took place before we arrived at a concrete agreement with regard to this and other questions. On the question of establishing minimum rates of wage, the conference was unanimously agreed. I remember that at the first meeting of the conference the Prime Minister came dashing into the room, and said:
I just want to have a word with the Committee because in a few hours I leave for Paris to settle the world's peace.
and he said:
I want to feel in so far as industrial world peace is concerned that that also is an unfair way of settlement.
Ho told us the Labour Convention was meeting in Washington in a few weeks, and that that country was watching with a keen eye the industrial movement in the old country and the efforts which he hoped the Committee would make with a view to the settlement for all time of the industrial problem. He went a stage further and said:
I charge you with the duty of making an honest effort to settle the industrial problem in our country, and if this Committee brings forward a majority finding on any particular question which requires
legislative enactment to give effect to your finding then with the big majority which I have behind me in the Houee of Commons I assure you that legislation will be immediately introduced to give effect to these recommendatioras.
How far all of us have been disillusioned since then, both with regard to world peace and industrial peace? Our findings were wired to the Washington Convention. As a result an effort was made to settle world industrial peace and we know how the House received the results of that particular Convention. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) held a high position in the Government at this period, and he also had a considerable amount of dealings with this Industrial Committee. I was reminded the other day when the right hon. Gentleman was chiding the Minister of Labour, with regard to the paltry sum which he was putting up in the effort to in some way relieve the unemployment problem, that Members and right hon. Members of this House, freed from the cares and responsibilities of office, can talk glibly in millions, whereas while they were in office, endeavouring to deal with the same old problem, they thought in terms of the most humble coin of the realm, a coin which I am informed was first instituted in this country to enable Scottish Members of Parliament to give tips to London cab drivers. I do not, of course, refer to the present Members of Parliament. They, like myself would be very generous indeed if they had it.
A well-known Member of this House was Chairman of the employer's side on that National Committee. Hon. Members opposite appreciate fully that before Sir Alan Smith signed his name to a document or recommendation, such as I have in my possession here, that shrewd gentleman would weigh up the various pros and cons, but Sir Alan Smith, as Chairman of the employers' side, and all his colleagues on that side, were not only unanimous with the workers' representative in making a recommendation in favour of minimum rates of wages in their Report they say:
The Committee have agreed to minimum prime rates of wages to be established by legal enactment and they ought to be of universal applicability. The Committee took full cognisance both of the difficulty of
determining on particular rates and dealing with exceptional cases, and having these considerations in mind they make the following recommendations:

1. That minimum prime rates of wages should be established by legal enactment and should be universally applicable.
2. That a Commission should be appointed, immediately upon the passing of the Act, to report within three months, as to what the rates should be and by what method and what successive steps they should be brought into operation, and the Commission should advise as to the means of carrying out the necessary administrative work."

In connection with that the Prime Minister who had not returned from Paris wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead division of Glasgow (Sir Robert Horne), who was then Minister of Labour, dealing with the recommendations of the Committee, in which he made this reference to the question of minimum rates of wages:
If the recommendations of the Committee receive the approval of the conference, the Government will give them their immediate and sympathetic consideration.
The recommendations of the Committee were placed before another full conference of employers and workers, and were unanimously adopted by that full conference. Again the conference was representative of the very best employers in the country, and was also thoroughly representative of the workers. On the 18th August, 1919, the then Minister of Labour introduced a Bill for the purpose of constituting a Commission of Inquiry into this question of minimum rates of wages. That is what we are asking for. The Bill, after being introduced into this House, has not been heard of since. I suppose that it has been consigned to the limbo of broken promises which surrounds all Coalition Governments. I am not disposed to go into details with regard to the purpose of the Bill, but that, in effect, is what I am asking in this House by this Motion. Objections may be, and no doubt will be, raised to the proposal of the establishment of the minimum rate of wages. One of the objections which we may hear is that such a Measure is impracticable. In reply to that, many trades in our own country have minimum rates of wages which have been established by Statute. The same thing applies in our Colonies and in many other countries. In the Colony of Victoria we have had the
wages board system since 1896, in South Australia since 1900, in New South Wales since 1901, in Western Australia since 1902, in the Commonwealth since 1904, in Queensland since 1908, in Tasmania since 1911, and in New Zealand also they have a system of minimum wages. In Canada the nine Provinces have adopted the principle, and in the United States of America 12 States have passed similar laws. Again we hear the objection that trade boards are prejudicial to industry and trade generally. That view was not upheld by the Cave Committee, which stated:
The Committee think that it is established that the system has had beneficial effects. Speaking generally Trade Boards have succeeded in abolishing the grosser forms of underpayment and in regularising wage conditions in the trades covered by the Act. Moreover, in establishing a stated minimum the trade boards have afforded protection to the good employer and recurity as against unscrupulous competitors.
One hears again that industry cannot afford it. That may to some extent be true, but, as a result of five years of war and as a further result of a bad peace, the workers are bound to accept for a time a lower standard of living. We say that it is manifestly unfair that this should be borne by one class alone. All classes, we claim, should share it alike. So far as the working classes are concerned, during the last three years they have had their wages reduced by some £15,000,000 per week, or £780,000,000 a year, but while the workers have suffered these reductions in wages, on the other side, if one can quote from such a responsible paper as "The Economist," the dividend of 320 companies has averaged 10 per cent. A large amount of this is on watered capital. The prescribing of a national minimum wage by law would have the advantage of fixing for everyone a definite minimum which would be independent of the local weakness of trade union organisation, the helplessness of workers in nondescript occupations where there is no effective trade union, local variations in the cost of living, and the difficulty of securing any minimum at all for workers in domestic employment and any odds and ends of industry.
I want clearly to state that I am not asking for a national flat minimum rate of wage, nor would one for a moment dream of putting forward such a proposal.
What we ask it that national minimum rates of wages shall be established in every industry of the country. So far as we on the Labour Benches are concerned. I would say that when this proposal was brought forward less than 12 months ago the present Prime Minister and every Member of the Government Front Bench of to-day, voted in favour of the proposal, which was then lost by only a few votes. There is, therefore, unanimity, so far as the present Government is concerned, on this particular issue. Minimum wages could and should be based upon the necessary minimum cost of living, and could be made to rise or fall with any necessary variations in that cost. This would protect the workers against a fall in the value of money. Furthermore, minimum rates of wages would put all employers on an equality, and would prevent that constant nibbling of wages by what we term sweating employers. I have said that the proposal has been agreed to in principle between the best employers in the country and the trade union representatives. We are simply asking that a Commission of Inquiry should be set up in order, if possible, to give effect to the representations of the National Joint Industrial Council, which brought forward unanimous findings in 1919.
I see that another objection has been raised in certain newspapers to-day. In one newspaper it is said that if this Motion is carried it will have the effect of driving the Labour party and the present Government into the adoption of Protection. If there be any truth in that, it ought to convince right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a means at least of getting their pet subject brought forward. Personally, I am prepared to take the risk of having the Labour party driven into the adoption of Protection if, as I hope, hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote for the Motion. I repeat that in this proposal we are asking for nothing that has not already been agreed upon by the best employers. The larger trade unions may have something to say with regard to the proposal. They may claim, and rightly, that for many years past they have been able to conduct their own negotiations and look after their own industries. But there are hundreds of thousands of people engaged in various industries, where trade union effort has been handicapped, and where
rates, even in the majority of trades today, are not capable of maintaining a man, his wife and family, in the common necessaries of life. Therefore, I appeal with confidence to all sections of the House to pass this Resolution unanimously, and to leave it to the Government to introduce the necessary Bill.

Mr. G. OLIVER: I beg to second the Motion. The question of an adequate minimum wage goes to the very fundamentals of the problems of the great working classes of this country, determines the kind of homes in which they shall live, the quantity and the quality of the food they shall consume, and the kind of clothes that they shall wear. It goes right down to the health of the people and to the education of the children of the working classes. Dealing as it does with such a comprehensive subject, the Motion, asking for a scientific inquiry into what wages can be paid by the industries of the country, is certainly not asking too much, but is asking for what ought to be very readily conceded. It will be well known to the House that as far back as 15 years ago this question of legislative enactment to deal with the wages of certain sections of workers was dealt with. In 1909 the first Trade Boards Act was passed. That was due, in the main, to exposure of the very terrible conditions under which thousands of our fellow citizens had been employed—adult women receiving 10s. a week and as low as 5s. a week for a full week's work.
It is true that in this country to-day conditions are almost as bad, when you consider the great increase in the cost of living. Take the position of the miners, a body of men following a hazardous and hard occupation. They are to-day receiving rates of wages which are a disgrace to the country and to the so-called captains of industry in that particular business. The skilled engineer, after a long apprenticeship, is earning the princely sum of 55s. for a 47 hours week. The engineer's labourer is receiving anything from 34s. to 39s. a week. These are highly organised industries. In other industries the conditions are past description. If hon. Members think that there are no conditions worse than those which I have described, I advise them to peruse the evidence given before the Cave Committee.
These being the conditions, the Motion should go through with acclamation. If we are to solve many of the difficulties which are in embryo to-day, it will be necessary to convince the great working-class masses of this country that the wage they receive is the maximum that the industry can possibly produce. In the last Parliament I heard the Minister of Labour say, in reply to a question, that from 1921 to last year the wages of the workers have been reduced by, roughly, £13,000,000 a week. In view of the statement that trade is on the increase, and the fact that the returns of the big companies show larger dividends, the working class will want to know why they cannot receive a pro rata increase in wages, and in view of the great importance of this question, if we are to have social stability and industrial peace, I think the House of Commons should, without any dissent, pass the Resolution which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: I rise to support the Resolution which has been so ably proposed and seconded, and I am glad there is attached to that Resolution the suggestion that there should be a Commission of Inquiry. Some ten days ago, I attempted to address the House on the large question of a general inquiry into industry, and I fear that hon. Members opposite were not quite in agreement with me on that occasion. I believe, however, the time has come, or is swiftly coming, when we must have such an inquiry. That inquiry should not be confined to the question of wages alone, but the terms of reference should cover an investigation into the whole subject of the conduct of industry in this country. Some years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House spoke on the League of Nations in my constituency, and I had the honour of presiding at the meeting. I then threw out the idea of a League of Industry, and whilst not committing himself to that proposal, I think the right hon. Gentleman was to some extent in agreement with the idea. Since that time I have been advocating in season and out of season the necessity for such a scheme. I am glad to note that hon. Members opposite do not view industry from the standpoint of wages alone, but also from the standpoint of the necessity for production.
I am one of those who believe that we cannot possibly have complete production or the best production in any industry until we have contented producers. I am not and never have been an advocate of low wages, and in the interests of industrial peace, I believe it will be necessary to go closely into the proposal for a minimum wage. We must concede the position that men and women should be able to live in respectability, and a thorough investigation on the lines suggested by the Mover is desirable. I go a little further. I think it is imperative in the interests of essential producton and the supply of all those commodities necessary in an industrial country, that we should have some proper basis of production.
I have always contended that a flat rate is not the best method, even for industry itself. We must recognise that this question of a minimum wage involves other questions such as the question of payment by results, and we shall be compelled to look into that aspect of the matter also. Indeed I think hon. Members opposite will have to accept that principle as one necessarily involved in the minimum wage principle. I do not see why hon. Members from industrial centres who lake their seats opposite at a salary which is perhaps considerably higher than that which they would earn at their own trades or those who become members of the Government and receive payment at an abnormal rate, should have any scruples at the idea that those with whom they have worked and who have the ability to produce at a larger rate than others, should be remunerated according to the amount of production which they are able to achieve. The principle of the minimum wage has already been accepted in many industries, but we must take a larger view than one of wages alone. The Mover of the Resolution suggested that there might attach to his proposal the idea that it would lead to the protection of industries. I have not seen the newspaper references to which he alluded, but before I attempted to speak here I was convinced that the acceptance of the minimum wage principle, logically compelled the acceptance of the principle of the protection of industry. If hon. Members opposite had the whole industry of the country nationalised they would become responsible for if, and they would not only have to provide
adequate wages for those whom they employed but they would also have to provide adequate employment and to keep the industries going. During and since the last election there has been considerable discussion of this question, and, so far as I am concerned, it all comes down to a reasonable and common-sense proposal. If you can show me any industry, I care not whether it is the cotton trade, the shipbuilding trade, or any other, which is being seriously menaced by foreign competition or any competition, I say it is only fair to those responsible for that industry that the reasons why it is being so menaced should be looked into. If it is being menaced by unfair competition to its detriment, it is only reasonable that we should then take steps to have that unfair competition removed. Whatever may be the outcome of this discussion, I seriously commend to hon. Members opposite the consideration that the proposal involves not only the right of the worker to a fair and reasonable wage but also the right of the industry whereby he gets that fair and reasonable wage, to adequate protection.

Mr. KEDWARD: Why have you dropped it?

Mr. THOMPSON: I do not think that interruption touches the question at all. The pressure not only from our side but from the general demands of industry will force upon us the consideration of this subject. We must never forget that, we are the greatest industrial country in the world, and the pressure of the problem will become such that no party in the State will be able to withstand it. I hail this Resolution with satisfaction because, it has come from hon. Members opposite while they are in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "In office!"] Very well, in office. I have a distinct feeling that, in a lot of these questions that obsess the minds of both parties, we allow mere party issues to dominate, when the issues should be far above that. Sometimes it is a question on this side, I will say, of dividends, often it is a question on the other side of mere wages, and I want to say that the prime question should be whether the industry can legitimately bear the strain of both. Because I hail with satisfaction the possibility of hon. Members taking a wider and more comprehensive view of the
needs of industry, I welcome this Resolution to-night. I trust that, if it be carried to the conclusion which is desired—and that is, to set up a Commission which will inquire as to the legitimate needs of the workers—there will also be an extension of that inquiry into the whole of the needs of industry, and that at least it will be a step forward to the consummation of that industrial peace and prosperity which every one of us in this House ardently desires. I have great pleasure in supporting the Resolution.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would like to say a word or two on this Motion, moved and seconded with such striking ability and no less striking brevity, and I certainly will not lead the House into any discussion as between Free Trade and Protection. The British method of settling wages is collective bargaining, and there is no country in the world where that practice has been followed so universally or with such success as in this country, but, as, I think, both the Mover and the Seconder have pointed out, we deliberately departed from that practice in certain cases where industries were not organised, where people could not help themselves, and where, in fact, very low wages were being paid. We departed from it in 1909 as a result, no doubt, of the very proper agitation of the Anti-Sweating League, and set up trade boards with not only the right to fix wages, subject to the Minister of Labour, but to impose legal penalties upon those who did not pay, all over the trade, the wages which were approved; and in 1918 that departure from the general principle of collective bargaining took a much wider sweep, in the amended Trade Board Act of that year. I know my hon. Friends consider that later, in 1921 and 1922, the Government, of which I was a member, did not proceed with the trade board policy as fast as we ought to have done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] All I can say is this: I am confident that the slump into which we had fallen at that time was so severe, and the difficulties were so great, that if I had secured the enthusiastic applause of hon. Friends who now sit on the Government Benches, but who then sat opposite, the trade board system would have foundered. I, therefore, in the exercise of my judgment,
decided that my best policy, and the best policy for the people in whose interests we are all concerned, was to go rather slowly, and I appointed the Cave Committee. It is with interest that I heard the Mover of the Resolution read with approval a paragraph from the Report of that Committee, with which, I need not say, I find myself in the most cordial agreement. In 1919 we come to the National Industrial Conference, which was called by the Government of the day, and they appointed a Committee no less representative than the joint Conference itself. Their recommendations were so short that I am sure I shall be forgiven for reading them. They said:
The Committee have agreed that minimum time rates should be established by legal enactment, and that they ought to be of universal applicability.
9.0 P.M.
The Committee took full cognisance of the difficulties of determining particular rates, and of dealing with exceptional cases. Upon that, you had the Bill of 1919, to which reference has been made and which this Motion asks shall be put into operation without delay. I think the Seconder of the Motion spoke of a scientific inquiry, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) evidently has an idea of a committee of inquiry which is going to take up all sorts of other subjects, but really that is not the proposition. The proposition is, that the Bill of 1919 is to be put into operation by this Government without delay.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: I suggested that the reference might be extended.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know that the hon. Member quite realises what it is that we are proposing. It is much more than a scientific inquiry. I was not responsible for this Bill, which was introduced, I believe, by Sir Auckland Geddes considerably before my time. It had, indeed, been withdrawn before I became Minister of Labour. It set up a Commission to inquire into and report on minimum time-rates of wages, and it is not only a scientific inquiry, but it is a Commission to decide what rates should be, and the manner in which they should be brought into operation, which is very much more than a scientific inquiry. These four points are worth reading in detail:
It will consist of a Chairman, and such other persons as His Majesty may think
fit are to be appointed, and have power for the purpose of inquiring into and deciding what such minimum time rates of wages should be,"—
Not a flat rate, but minimum rates and there is all the difference in the world between these two propositions—
regard being had to the cost of living in the various districts, and to other matters which appear to the Commissioners to be necessary; in the next place, inquiring into and making recommendations as to the methods of classification and the steps by which such minimum time rates of wages should be brought into operation, and the machinery by which they may be varied as and when occasion requires; in the third place, inquiring into and making recommendations as to the granting of exemptions from the rates so based in the case of infirm and incapable workers and in other exceptional cases, and the methods by which such exceptions should be granted; and, finally, making recommendations as to the legislation necessary for such purposes aforesaid, whether by amendment of the Trade Boards Acts, 1909 to 1918, and other enactments relating to minimum rates of wages, or otherwise, and what amendments of the law, if any, are desirable.
That Bill, which was manifestly the result of the deliberations of the National Industrial Conference, was introduced in 1919—on 18th August, I think—and it was withdrawn on 22nd December, 1919. That is where we now are, except this, that the Motion of last year, which was precisely the same as that which is before us now, was rejected by 189 votes against 176, and the Debate showed that there are difficulties in this matter, and that it is not quite so simple as perhaps my hon. Friends may think. I turn myself to the present Government, as a man who has been buffeted by long administrative experience into some sort of appreciation of the difference which sometimes exists between the practical and the desirable, and when hon. Members tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour: "You have to proceed with this Bill without delay," which is what the Motion does, well, he is physically a big man, and he is no less big intellectually, but in view of the congested state of Government business, I think they must not be too hard on him there. As far as this Motion is concerned, I myself agree with the principle of it. Certainly I do. I have never pretended anything to the contrary, under any circumstances, but I make this reservation: Do not let the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion, and hon. Members who support it, imagine that
the Minister of Labour can now say, "Very well, we will go right on with that Bill," because the Debate of a year ago, as hon. Members will see if they read it—and no doubt many of them have read it—will disclose difficulties in solving this rather difficult problem. I shall vote for this Motion, but I just make this reservation, and I make it as a man who has been Minister of Labour, and a man who knows the difficulties and differences which, as I say, exist between the desirable and the practicable.

Major TRYON: I rise as one on this side of the House, for it seems to me that, on a matter of this importance, it is time to give expression to some opinion. We are not very fond of having immense Measures brought in on Friday, and adopted like lost children by the Government, and now we are going to have another huge Measure brought in at, 8.15 on the chances of the ballot. I should be the last person to unnecessarily criticise, and I pay my full tribute to the two short, sincere, and admirable speeches with which this Motion has been brought in; but is it not about time that the Government gave us some lead and told us what they are in favour of? We have been told—and we know it is true—that the Government have had Committees of experts considering all these problems. They have all the information at their disposal. Why, then, does not the Government bring in a definite Bill, or put forward definite proposals and explain them? For my part I regard this as a purely academic discussion, and I do not think we really are called upon to vote at all. I, for one, should like to wait until the responsible Department of the Government brought forward definite proposals, and said what they are going to do. That is the least we can expect from the Government. The fact that it is a Labour Government, and that this is a Labour Measure, makes me astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has not intervened a little earlier in the Debate to tell us what the Government proposes to do—to tell us what really are their proposals!
Criticism might be made of the Resolution that it goes back five years. We have heard a good deal about the evils of the Coalition; but, apparently, after five years' deliberation the Movers
of this Motion have nothing better than to suggest that we should adopt a Coalition Measure five years old. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is setting up a definite Commission which is to study the rates of wages and so on. But a good many things have happened since 1919. In those days we had very, very few Trade Boards: now we have over 50 of them. In those days but few men or women were covered by the operation of these Boards; now I am told that between two and a half and three millions of people are covered by the operation of the Trade Boards; and, in addition, a largo number of the principal trades in the country have their own agreements or their own arrangements for dealing with these difficult problems. Therefore, it seems to me, that this proposal is going back to the arrangement of 1919. As a matter of fact, if you wish to deal with a minimum wage the Trade Boards are a much better way of dealing with the matter than a Central Authority. One of the reasons why I am in favour of the Boards is given in a quotation which I shall make from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who told us that:
The conditions of the coal mining industry are so complex and varied that it is quite impossible for any central authority to lay down, even as regards particular areas, still less with regard to the country, a particular rate of wages for a particular class of work.
The object of that quotation is to show that the separate trades and separate conditions require their own Trade Boards to deal with them, and that a Trade Board deals much more effectively with its own particular industry than would a Central Commission—for the question is so enormous and so complicated.
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion when he himself aptly used the word "Protection" with reference to the Motion. There is no getting over the fact that a minimum wage is Protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Undoubtedly! It is Protection, and for this reason: under the Trade Board you come to some arrangement as to what in an industry is considered to be a possible wage, and then, as the hon. Gentleman very rightly pointed out, when agreement is reached
upon that wage steps are taken to have Statutory Orders issued to see that no unfair employer undersells employers who are paying up the wages arranged. That is Protection. Clearly it is protection against the competition of unfair employers who wish to depress the wages of their workmen.
Now we come to a very complicated question. Supposing in a particular trade, as I am told occurred in the jute trade a few years ago, the wages board put up the wages so that foreign competition is admitted and so unemployment produced? That has happened, and I think the trade board is much better than a central committee, because a trade board is in touch more closely with the trade, and more likely to be right and to know what can be paid in wages so as to prevent foreign competition. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in using the word "Protection." He knows it, and so does everyone else. My own point, however, is, if I may say so, that in important matters like this we might have more definite proposals from the Government and not from the back benches. Surely on questions of this sort, which come up on Fridays and at 8.15, it would be really more satisfactory to the House if we could have definite proposals from the Government and a Bill with explanation; we should then have something to go into more fully.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): In reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, may I say that I had to wait until the Mover and Seconder had spoken, and it was only courtesy to wait until the Speaker for the Opposition had spoken—for I could not refuse to give way to an ex-Minister of Labour—and it was the evident desire to speak on the part of my right hon. and gallant Friend himself that prevented me then speaking, although I was rising to do so. I hope, at any rate, he will forgive me for what might appear to him to be a lack of courtesy, but I did not want to prevent him to get up. So far as the Government is concerned, there is no question as to its acceptance of the principle underlying this Motion. It is a private Member's Motion. The Government Whips will not be put on. But undoubtedly, and without any equivocation, the Government is definitely in favour of any Measure that will
guarantee to every decent workman and workwoman a minimum standard of comfort. One has to consider what are the possibilities of the case. We have been reproached for not telling the House frankly what are the Government proposals. Our experience is that when we tell the House what our proposals are, there is always a tremendous amount of discussion, a little opposition, and we find the greatest difficulty in getting our Measures through quickly.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

Mr. SHAW: The Noble Lady may ejaculate "Oh!" but the facts of the case are, there is little voting against our proposals, and much talking. Everybody will acknowledge that those are the facts, except, those, perhaps, who desire to score a party point. It is certainly not desirable that wages should fall below a mean which will give sufficient food, sufficient good clothing, and good shelter, and maintain a healthy condition of things. As a matter of fact, everything points to the fact that we are degenerating below the standard of 1914; and in 1914 the condition was so bad that in Lancashire mills, roughly, one man out of six only was physically fit, as proved by medical examination. I am speaking from personal knowledge of the examination that took place in five West Midland Counties, and I state that the condition of the people in these five West Midland Counties was simply appalling. No true Briton will deny the statement which I am going to make, that the only way to judge the greatness of a nation is to judge it by the condition of its people, physically, mentally, and morally, and you cannot have the mentality and the spirituality unless you have the proper physical condition. The things I am saying now are ordinarily understood and advocated by Members of the present Government, consequently they cannot do otherwise than say that the spirit that underlies this Motion is favoured by them. But our favour must be tempered by the progress of business. I am going to call the attention of the Mover to the last few words of his Motion:
this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill.
Now will anybody contend that this Bill is a non-contentious Measure? If we had
a guarantee from the Opposition that it was a non-contentious Bill we could easily accept the whole of the Motion without question.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: It has not been opposed.

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member for Mossley says it has not been opposed, but have we any guarantee that it will not be opposed? On this point I would like to reply to the hon. Member in a phrase commonly used in Lancashire, "We've had some." I have an idea what would take place if we pledge ourselves immediately to proceed with this Bill. I am afraid that we should find a tremendous amount of opposition and discussion in Committee, and the other things which we think are more urgent would be badly held up. Quite frankly, that is the position of the Government. We have to consider this question in relation to other Measures. We have to consider whether it is advisable to have this Motion holding up the progress of other Measures, or to say that at the earliest possible opportunity we shall proceed with the terms of this Motion. We cannot, however, accept without hesitation and without reservation the words, "To proceed without delay" with a Bill of this sort, and I hope the Mover of the Resolution will see that point quite clearly.
With regard to the proposal itself, while the Government Whips will not be put on, I shall have no hesitation at all in going into the Lobby in favour of this Motion. I believe that no nation can claim to be a decent nation, much less a great country, that refuses to any person willing to work a decent livelihood. I assert with confidence that there are hundreds of thousands of our people at the present moment who are actually working, and who are not able to get even a minimum standard of comfort that any responsible man in the world would say was necessary for the physical well-being of a human being. There are not hundreds but millions of our people who do not know what are the real comforts of life, who, week after week, month after month, and year after year live with the shadow of the wolf of poverty on their window.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Then why not get on with the Bill?

Mr. SHAW: Will hon. Members opposite guarantee that it will not be opposed?

Viscountess ASTOR: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government feel that the country cannot stand this Bill, or are they afraid of the Opposition? Is the reason an economic one which you are up against, or are you afraid of the Opposition?

Mr. SHAW: I will explain again what I mean. I have tried before to explain this point, but perhaps it is my lack of clarity that is at fault. The position of the Government is that it has a tremendous amount of urgent business on the stocks, and it must consider which ought to come first. May I give an example? In the immediate future the Unemployment Insurance Act will lapse, so to speak, and that Bill must be got through before that period arrives. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has on the stocks a Housing Bill. The Minister of Agriculture has placed his proposals before the House, and all these things the Government have to take up in due course, and they must consider whether they can afford to listen to the temptings of some hon. Gentlemen opposite which may land them in for protracted discussions on this Bill at the expense of other Bills which the Government desire to proceed with.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if a Bill on those lines were introduced, all the other Measures he is talking about would be quite unnecessary?

Mr. SHAW: The wisdom of the gods and of my hon. Friend are alike inscrutable. What I am afraid of is that the Government business may be held up, and that is the reason for the qualification which I have laid down on behalf of the Government with regard to the last part of the Motion which asks us to proceed immediately with this Bill. We do not hesitate to say that we favour the underlying principle of the Bill, and that when we get an opportunity we shall do our level best to secure that no person in this land shall have less than a decent minimum of subsistence, but we make the reservation that we cannot hold ourselves literally to the last few lines of the Motion if it is passed.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The Minister of Labour has, I think, shown that he is above all things a born politician. I think, however, that the last part of his speech was a little disingenuous. Supposing that by an Act of Parliament like the one suggested in this Motion, we can secure a minimum wage for everybody which will provide a reasonable standard of comfort, surely it is useless to introduce Housing Bills and Insurance Bills, if all these things can be provided by a Minimum Wage Bill which would render all those Measures the right hon. Gentleman has referred to totally unnecessary.

Mr. RITSON: Is the hon. Member aware that a minimum wage would not apply to men out of work?

Mr. HOPKINSON: Exactly, and I am coming to that. The right hon. Member, at the beginning of his speech, said the Government accepted the principle, and the principle is stated specifically in the Motion. The Government, as a Socialist Government, is bound to accept the principle that a living wage for all workers should be the first charge upon industry. What does that mean when translated into practice—that the first charge on industry should be not for capital, but for the wages of the worker? It sounds very plausible. I know a lot of people on this side of the House are quite capable of falling into the same trap that has misled gentlemen on the other side. In these cases one has to take simple examples, because in my experience I have not come across more than one or two people who really had the faintest notion of what capital means. Let us take an example of the wage of the worker being the first charge on industry, and capital (if I may use another Lancashire expression) "having to lump it." Many of us, I have no doubt, have cultivated allotments in these hard times. Has it never struck the allotment cultivator that if he is going to be successful he has got to make that industry provide for capital before it provides for labour. In other words, if he is growing potatoes, and is going to give the whole of the potatoes to labour—that is, if he is going to eat the whole lot—it is perfectly certain he is going to have no potatoes the next year. If, on the contrary, he has got the capitalist temperament, he will make
capital instead of labour, a first charge upon the potato-growing industry, by putting aside a certain number of those potatoes, so that he has some prospect of planting potatoes the next year and getting another crop. In the whole essence and nature of things there must be a first charge for capital on industry, otherwise industry comes to an end. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have quite enough intelligence to know perfectly well that you cannot go on year after year conducting an industry unlese, before any consumption is provided for, before any standard of living is provided for, certain capital charges are provided for, so that the industry can continue and does not come to a sudden end.
It is desirable that these things should be started plainly and openly, and that such twaddle, because it is nothing else, as this great principle of the living wage for all workers being the first charge on industry should receive a little opposition in this House. I was not surprised to find that a number of gentlemen calling themselves Liberals and a number of gentlemen calling themselves Conservatives were quite ready to swallow this stuff. They would be quite ready to swallow any amount more stuff like it, because, unhappily, they seem to think the electors of this country are people of even less intelligence than their representatives in this House. I venture to say, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that if we take the average grown worker in the cotton industries, the engineering industries and the mining industries of our own county of Lancashire, eight men out of ten would see through the fallacy of this Resolution. That is one of the main reasons why I think he showed a certain amount of disingenuity in order to get the Government out of the difficulty of having to support this sort of thing.
I was pleased to notice that the Conservative party has evidently been studying elementary economics since the Election, and has at length discovered the very obvious fact that Protective tariffs and Socialism are all of a piece; that if any country is going to adopt protection from foreign industries it has got to adopt Socialism in the end, and that if any country is foolish enough to adopt Socialism in the first instance it will very soon have to adopt a heavy
tariff. If the minimum wage for paper makers for example, is very considerably above the minimum wage of the paper makers of Germany, Norway or any other country, it is perfectly certain imported paper is going to drive the English paper off the market. Hence, one of the first steps to be taken after having established a minimum wage is to put a heavy Protective duty on the foreign paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] It is no use saying "no, no," because it stands to reason, and every hon. Gentleman opposite really knows it perfectly well. It is rather a pity that the time of the House of Commons during the greater part of an evening should be devoted to discussing a Motion which every single hon. Member opposite knows in his heart of hearts is sheer twaddle and nothing else.

Mr. MACKINDER: As a newcomer to the House it is exceedingly refreshing to me to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). He alludes to some of the economic fallacies of Members on this side, and he falls into the most awful economic fallacy from our point of view of suggesting that the minimum wage has got to be the maximum wage. He said if the minimum wage were fixed what need would there be for any other Acts of Parliament? Our experience has been that where we may get a minimum wage through Trades Boards that minimum has been the minimum only for those who are unorganised, and that where by strength of organisation it is possible to get that minimum increased to a maximum that is usually done. That authority on Trade Boards, Professor Hobhouse, stated some two years ago:
In view of certain misunderstandings which have come to their notice appointed members of this Trade Board wish it to tie understood that in voting for the rates proposed or fixed by the Trade Board they have felt obliged to keep in mind the capabilities of the least fortunately placed shops in the poorest districts in each area. They have not considered it their duty, nor indeed within their power, to enforce standard rates, and the rates ought not to be quoted in trade negotiations or in arbitration proceedings as evidence of their opinion that the rates should rule throughout the trade.
It appears to me the hon. Member for Mossley is an apostle of the doctrine disseminated by the Primrose League some time ago, especially during the last Election and the Election before. I believe
the main quotations were these, that in order to reduce unemployment British workers must work longer, work harder, and work for less wages. If that is the doctrine of the party with which the hon. Member is connected, I want to say very frankly—

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does the hon. Member state that the Primrose League issued a statement that British workmen should work longer and harder and for less wages?

Mr. MACKINDER: If the hon. Member for Barrow will write to the Primrose League's head office in Victoria Street and ask them for a copy of their latest publication he will receive that, on a nice little yellow paper. I have the document. It is rather strange to me that in the year of grace 1924 we should be asking for a regulation that men and women should have sufficient of the necessities of life when they are prepared to work, but it has been our experience all our lives to have to ask for the bare necessities of life. In the year 1912 I was trying to keep a wife and two children on 25s. a wek. In that year two of us were working 111 hours a week for 37s. It may be said that that was in the bad old days that have gone by and will never come again, but may I quote from a verbatim report of some wages negotiations which took place in November, 1923, the statement of an employer that, in the district for which he spoke, the South Yorkshire district, the labourers are getting 32s. per week, that the boys in the big steel industries are getting 12s. 3d. at 17, and that in the multiple trade in that district girls of 16 and 17 in the shops are getting 10s. per week. I suggest that this Resolution ought to commend itself to every hon. Member of this House as evidence of good faith that those bad days are, at all events, going to be cast behind us for ever.
I do not think that Members can understand the feelings of the woman of the house when she is wondering anxiously what her man is going to bring home at the end of the week. There are hon. Members here who week after week have gone home with a wage of less than £1, and this weighs very heavily upon our memories. There is no hate, there is no malice, there is no
anger, but the experience we have gone through has resulted in the Resolution which my hon. Friend has moved. In addition to this point of view that we have expressed—the humanitarian point of view—I suggest that from the employer's point of view, from the point of view of industry alone, the mere reduction in wages of £13,000,000 per week is bound to have a detrimental effect on industry. In our great textile industry in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where we manufacture the finest cloth the world can produce, our people who make those wonderful fabrics are, because they are receiving such low wages, having to wear shoddy clothes. I suggest that the people who make those beautiful cloths are deserving of something better than shoddy, which is made of rags imported into this country from the Colonies, from India, and South Africa—from the rags that the negroes were clothed with, which are being made into cloth again. If the people do get a reasonable minimum of comfort, it will increase trade in other industries. It will result in more work for those industries and a better state of health, not only for our people, but for other people, owing to the great number of unemployed who will be brought in.
I beg hon. Members to think of the men to whom I have referred, who are receiving, in the Sheffield district, 32s. and 34s. a week. I would ask them, do they say to the people whom we represent, from whom we have sprung—the people who are spending their lives digging out those great treasures from the resources of Mother Nature—"We are living a sheltered comfortable life, our income is good, but what about you? It does not matter"? Ever since we can remember there has been no legislation that has not been fought for by the party whom we represent. There has been no advance in wages, no betterment in the conditions of our people, which has not been wrung almost by force from the employing classes.[Interruption.] I have been a trade union negotiator and official for 10 years, and I say to hon. Members that the result of my experience has been that the employer has always claimed the right to pay as little as he possibly can, and then to try to extract from the underpaid, the underfed man, the maximum amount of work that he possibly can. I say again that I feel no malice, no hate, no anger, but I do feel a dumb sense of wonderment
that, in this year of our Lord, 1924, we people should be asking the House of Commons to regulate that men and women shall have enough food provided that they are prepared to work. I ask that, when the time comes for the Labour Government to introduce a Bill, as I hope it will, it may receive the assent and support of every Member of this House. I think of the times when my children were short of food, and I was working 55½ hours a week. I hope the House will give the Bill every possible support when it is introduced, and I hope that, when this Resolution is put to the vote, every Member of the House will vote in favour of it.

Mr. REMER: The feeling that I have in this year of our Lord, 1924, is that hon. Members opposite, who have spoken go loudly in favour of a minimum wage, voted against me this afternoon when I asked leave to bring in a Bill to restrict the importation of sweated labour from abroad, and so prevented me from trying to do something on the same lines which they are now putting forward, and something which would have been of real benefit to the working people of this country. The Mover of this Resolution spoke about the wages in the engineering trade, and said that people were working 47 hours a week for 53s. Does he not realise that in Germany they are working 60 hours a week, and that the wages are not more than 25s. or 26s.? Does he not realise that goods are coining to this country from France and Belgium in competition with our people here, and that the wages in those countries are only about half what they are here, and they are displacing our people, and causing serious unemployment and hard-ship? I have been to a factory on the Continent, where the wages are 3s. a day and the people are working 60 hours a week, and hon. Members of the Labour party voted against the privilege I asked of introducing a Bill. They refused me even the privilege of printing the Bill and giving me an opportunity of putting it forward. When I heard the Minister of Labour telling us that low wages had a degenerating influence upon the people of the country, I quite agree with him. Low wages are the curse of this country. When manufacturers are bringing in goods, as they are doing at present, in competition and driving down wages to
these absurd levels, I really cannot understand the mentality of people who can go into the Lobby and vote against the restriction of sweated labour into this country. I heard the Mover of the Resolution quote from the Cave Report that this would have the great advantage of enabling us to protect good employers against unscrupulous competitors. What about the unscrupulous competitors on the Continent, who are sending us goods made by sweated labour to drive our unemployed upon the unemployment market and to drive still more people on to the dole every week?
I really cannot understand the mentality of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who told us that if you adopt Protection you will have to adopt Socialism. I wonder why the United States of America have not adopted Socialism. I am quite prepared to agree with him that, if you adopt Socialism, or nationalisation, or whatever the Labour party proposes of the type they are proposing to-night, they are bound by the very principle they are putting forward to adopt the principle of the protection of the home markets. Either the Mover or the Seconder said this was accepted by the employers. Has it been accepted by the employers in other countries who are shipping goods in competition with our manufacturers and our workmen? Has he been able to quote one single manufacturer, either in Germany, in Belgium or in France, who is prepared to accept a minimum wage ca the lines indicated in this Motion? I am disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Labour. I should like to hear from some Member of the Government, are they going to bring this Motion forward or are they not? What are the reasons why they are not prepared to come forward with this minimum wage? Is it on economic grounds, as the Noble lady said, or is it on the ground of the position of the Opposition? That is not honest. Let them bring a Bill forward and see what we will do with it. Give us our chance. It is not honest to put forward the plea of the Opposition, because we cannot tell what attitude we will take until we see the Bill. If the hon. Member comes forward with a Bill I can assure him there will be very many on this side who will give it the most sympathetic and careful consideration, and
many of us would try to use our influence with other Members of the party who may be opposed to it to restrain their opposition. I believe this question of an economic wage must go hand in hand with the question of Protection. I am quite in sympathy with, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hodges) who said we want better wages. We want to see the level of life raised much higher, and we can only secure that by eliminating foreign competition and sweated labour. So long as sweated labour comes into the country to drive our people on to the mud heap of unemployment, so long will our wages remain low and so long will the humanitarian speeches to which we have listened go disappointed.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): I rise to take part in this discussion, not from any academic view whatsoever, but in an attempt to get back to the realities of our everyday industrial life. This proposal in principle is not new to the House, neither is it new in application in industry. But the House has really to choose between taking careful thought and making preparations against the evils of to-morrow within this House and accepting the inevitability of incessant industrial warfare outside the House. The trade union movement goes on side by side with the political movement. The trade union movement has been characterised throughout its history by strikes, by struggles and by infinite misery, and because of those strikes and struggles we have lost valuable productive energy and the nation has been all the poorer because of them. But they are inevitable unless some authority bigger than a trade union, bigger than two trade unions, bigger than a group of trade unions realises that there may be some other course open to human intelligence for the rectification of industrial wrong than this kind of warfare which has characterised our industrial life for the last 100 years. Whether hon. Members talk in terms of elementary political economy or not, I should imagine that the hon. Member for Mossley must have been talking in terms of kindergarten political economy. Whether it is assumed on those benches that this proposal is twaddle or not, the struggle outside goes on for a minimum living wage, whether expressed in legislation or not.
Every time a struggle takes place you may come to the conclusion that in essence it is simply to improve the quality of life among the men or women in the particular industry. I put up a proposal a little while ago to a group of employers. I knew I was departing from the recognised, traditional, orthodox attitude of the people with whom I have been associated all my life. I made suggestions for industrial peace and discussed them with the employers and made, as a condition of industrial peace, one or two simple propositions, first, that every man and woman engaged in industry should have a wage at least as high as the wage they earned in 1914; that in consequence of the period of peace that we were embarking upon a new prosperity would develop, and these same people should share in that prosperity because of their submission to the proposal of industrial peace for a period of time. To my amazement, I found deep and profound opposition to these two simple proposals from all those people who regard themselves as the great capitalists in this country. They would not look at it, for this reason. They said, "We have no moral authority over other members engaged in industry to warrant us coming to any such assumption, for, if we agree to a universal arrangement of this description, we who are in prosperous industries where we can afford to pay it, may be called upon to support other industries who are not so favourably placed, and who are unable to carry out this simple principle of a living wage." That is capitalistic morality. That is the law of the capitalist world. It is everybody for himself. There is no co-ordinated point of view among capitalists as a rule which will enable them to come to the conclusion that they can enter into a plan or scheme of industrial organisation which will promote peace and prosperity, because it is based upon this simple principle of a living wage for the human units who are engaged in it.
It is said that the first charge upon industry must not be human beings, but every day capital expenses. I heard that argument put forward by the, coalowners a little while ago, and I had to reply to it. I replied in these terms: "You have to buy horses to work in a coal mine. You have to provide them with food. You have to see they are properly cared for"—although that is by no means universal,
I might add—"You have to see that these animals are kept in such physical condition that they can do their work properly and effectively on the morrow. But the men who work in the industry must not be treated, as the horses are treated, as a first charge upon production. The men in the industry, from your point of view, must be regarded as a second charge upon the industry"—and a second charge upon the production they really are.
I heard the Mover in his excellent speech refer to wages which were £2 7s. 6d. a week for a week of six days of 47 hours. In the mining industry there are hundreds of thousands of men who would be lucky to have 42s. a week for a week of six days. Yet the psychology of the mine owner, in common with the psychology of capital generally, treats the human unit as of secondary consideration, and normal fixed capital as a prime consideration. The time has got to come, and it is indicated in this simple principle contained in this Bill, when human beings shall toe a prime consideration, and when capital in its ordinary risks, in its ordinary enterprises, must regard as a first charge in a capital risk a living wage to the men whom it employs. There are risks in the utilisation of capital, risks that very largely are increased by want of what I call industrial efficiency and technique on the part of those in whose hands capital has been entrusted. There are certain risks, but the time hag come when men and women engaged in industry are not going to accept the doctrine that they must be treated only after all the risks have been accepted, all the charges Have been met, and that they are to have a mere residue of the balance, although in essence they are responsible practically for the whole lot.
10.0 P.M.
I put this to the House as one who desires to make a contribution to our national well being. I desire peace in industry, but I know that peace of that character can never be achieved until the human units in industry get a much fairer share and a greater degree of consideration than they get now. This country at this moment needs industrial peace, but there is trouble looming up on the horizon, trouble far-reaching, and trouble which, if allowed to develop, will have a strangulating
effect upon our national life. What is the simple claim behind this new grievance that is coming up in the great industry of coal mining? It is a simple plain claim for elementary existence; that is all. It is not even asking the coal owners to forego what they call their prescriptive right—profit. It is asking the most simple question that ever a body of men have ever asked in their lives—the simple right to an existence which they were able to secure by trade union effort 10 years ago. Their thoughts are expressed in this proposition, and so are the thoughts of all industrial workers.
Let me make this submission to tie House. The greatest spur to efficiency in industry and in technique in production comes through paying workmen high wages. Pay your men well, and you attract their minds to concentrating upon the problem of how they can, through mechanical means, reduce the overhead charges and other costs. You will get the maximum productivity in spite of the high cost of wages. Wherever you see a country with low wages you see a country breeding misery and poverty and squalor. Given a country where it is recognised in capitalistic circles that high wages pay, and you have a country which is on the high road to prosperity. Though it may be, from a purely economic point of view, desirable that these arrangements should be made outside this House, if capitalism had the wit and the will it could make these arrangements outside this House. But the have not got the will. They are content to go on in the old methods of production, which never for a moment co-ordinates our industrial activities. Because it cannot and is not being done by people outside this House, what avenue is open to the working classes of this country except this House, which is in existence for the general maintenance of the wellbeing of the units that make up this nation. What else can the working classes do but come to this House and ask this House to enforce these elementary considerations by law which are not carried out voluntarily by the general capitalistic system?
That is the reason for my hon. Friend's Motion. He comes with this Measure, knowing that if he submitted it outside it would be rejected, not because it would be unsound outside, but because the general capitalist mind is not so framed
that it would put it into operation. For those reasons I hope that the principle of this Motion will be carried by this House. Let this House give an example and pattern to the general capitalist industry outside, and I think it will have justified its existence.

Viscountess ASTOR: There are many of us on this side of the House and on the other side of the House who are not really so much concerned with the capitalist system as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appeared to think. If hon. Members on the other side can show us a better system under which we can give better wages to the people of this country, we will vote for them. We all know that Socialism has been tried, and that under no system do the people get better wages than under what you call capitalism. It is not fair to say that if we are fighting for capitalism we are fighting simply for ourselves. We are fighting for a system under which the largest majority will get a living wage. If the Government believe that this Bill will do what it says, it is their duty to explain how it will do that. You have talked about the evils of sweated industry, which we all know, and which we all want to get rid of. I have fought hard for trade boards. I think there are some bad employers in the country whose first idea is to get all the profits they can, but there is a great majority in the country who want to give a living wage, and whom the trade boards have helped enormously. It really is not quite cricket for the hon. Member to talk about those homes where the women are waiting for the men to come home with their wages. They are not the only people who are up against this. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] They are not. In this matter you are coming up against great economic factors, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the Government are not pressing this question.
I have great respect for the honesty and integrity of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I know what Front Benches are on either side of the House. There is much of a muchness about them. I feel that it is not fair for hon. Members to talk as if both the Oppositions, the one on this side and the one that acts with you sometimes, are against this. It is not right to assume that, because
we are against this, we therefore want to sweat the people of the country. The real problem in this country is that capital and labour should work together. [HON MEMBERS: "It has been tried."] Has it really been tried? The capitalist system is suffering because of some of its stupidities in the past, but do not lot us always look at the past. Capitalism has in some ways been insanely stupid, but I believe there is a new spirit in the country. I do feel, however, that you have, to tell the people of the country that they have to work if they want a living wage. [HON MEMBERS: "They do."] You know, as well as I do. Look at the work the bricklayers used to do at one time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be better if the hon. Member would address her remarks to me.

Viscountess ASTOR: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I think this is a very important Debate, and it is one that will go out to the country. Hon. Members opposite will go out and say that, the capitalists killed their Bill, but they are not in earnest about this Bill. I am in earnest. I think sweated labour is the greatest danger the country suffers from. People who want to sweat their workers for high profits are as great a danger to the country as the greatest Bolshevists. On the other hand, there is another danger, which is that the people who want to kill the capitalist system will not only kill the capitalist system, but will kill themselves in the meantime. You cannot have it both ways. We in this House ought to force the Government to take a strong line and persuade us on this matter, but they have not persuaded us. The hon. Member who last spoke talked about the coming struggle. He talked about those employers whom he had seen, but who could not speak for the great majority of the employers. That ought to come before the House of Commons. I think these things should be thrashed out hero. I think we ought to know what body of people are trying to keep down the wages of the workers when they could afford to give better wages. There is just this, and it is very important. When we talk so glibly about what industry can stand and that it is not giving its proper share to labour, we must remember that this does not depend
altogether on the will of the people at home. It depends a good deal upon foreign trade. I am not going into the question of Protection, because it does not arise on this matter; but may I beg hon. Members opposite, if they believe in this Bill, to get up and pursuade us, and let us all go and vote for it, and there will be no need for Insurance Acts and all the rest of it. The hon. Member for Lichfield, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hodges)—[Interruption.]—Oh, yes, he is very civil; he is over-civil—made an appeal to us for help: I say, please help us to help you. [HON. MEMBERS: "You need it!"] We need it, but we really want to see how we can help towards the millennium which you have promised to the people. We have never promised the millennium. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have!"] With due respect, we have never made any rash promises. Before you have been a Government very long you will find that, in regard to a lot of the things you talk about so glibly, and about which you ring the hearts of the people, when you come down to practical politics it is not as easy to do as it is to talk. I do beg hon. Members, if they are really earnest about this matter, not to get up and say that we on this side are trying to keep down the great masses of the people, that we are robbing them and depriving them of a living wage. It is not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true!"] If hon. Members think it is true, they are the most moderate party that I ever saw in my life. If I were on that side of the House and I thought that there were people in this country and people in this House, like the Liberals and the Conservatives, who were really out to down my wife, my husband and my children, I could not sit as quietly as hon. Members opposite do. I would not sit so meekly as they do.
Do, please, remember that all through the House all of us want a living wage. We are agreed that the first charge on industry is the human factor, and you have to remember that. If all who are engaged in industry would remember that, there would be no question of this sort to be dealt with to-day. I am sorry to have intervened, but it is a little hard always to hear Socialists talk about their great and expansive hearts, and as though capitalism was the greatest menace to progress. [HON. MEMBERS? "So it is!"] You know as well as I do
that they have tried to do without capitalism in Russia. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, they do not take their medicine very well.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member takes a long time to learn that remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Perhaps she would get along better if she remembered that.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am always frightened of being rude.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the reason of the Rule.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do wish hon. Members opposite would realise, when they talk about the heaven that is to be brought about through Socialism, that wherever Socialism has been tried it has failed. There is a better way, and that is through co-operation. Many of us are working for that, and many hon. Members opposite are working for that, but the thing that you are up against, in what you call Capitalism, is the greed of human hearts, and there is just as much greed on the other side of the House as there is on this.

Mr. FINNEY: I have been interested in some of the remarks, and particularly in the speech of the Noble Lady who has just addressed us. It is not exactly pleasant to hear from the benches above the Gangway on this side of the House that hon. Members who sit there are the only people who understand unemployment, or who lived under unemployment conditions. I am sorry that that view is so often expressed, and for this reason, that there are other people in other parties who have lived within recent years in homes where unemployment was rife, and who have been brought up in families where the wages were less than those that have been mentioned, and yet who have managed, by dint of a severe struggle, which has resulted in an addition of character that otherwise would not have been received, have been given the benefits both of education and of training.
I agree with the speech of the hon. Member who proposed this Motion. What I am distressed about is that this is the second occasion upon which this Labour Government has thrown on to private Members the task of bringing forward a big measure of reform of this kind.
[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true!"] We have the Rent Restriction proposals and the National Minimum Wage Resolution. I should prefer to see this brought forward with the weight and authority of the Government behind them. At least then we should have the Government as a Government pledged to certain efforts of reform. I feel strongly that on this question of the national minimum wage we should have the decided authority and support of the Government as a Government. Unfortunately, expression has been given to certain opinions which are decidedly antedeluvian. We do not recognise to-day the iron law of wages, just as I hope the day will arrive soon when Protection will disappear entirely from the minds of hon. Members opposite, and I hope that this will happen in a shorter time than has been necessary for the iron law of wages to disappear.
To-day we have to face the facts that there is a great body of people growing up engaged in our industry who are receiving the benefits of an educational system and who refuse to be condemned to the position of remote cogs in a very vast industrial machine. Industry must also realise that these people, not only have got views on the conduct of the affairs of the nation, but as workers have a natural aspiration towards having some say, even in the matter of a national minimum wage, in deciding how the proceeds of the industry in which they are engaged shall be shared as between the two parties, Capital and Labour. They make not only this natural demand, enlightened, as they are, by education, but there is the great demand, which must come home to every one here, for some sense of security. Security is a favourite word to-day. France seeks security. The world seeks security in the League of Nations and we have, in this country, an Admiralty programme anticipating by two years the building of cruisers to provide security. Yet there are some people who wonder that the worker desires security of life on a very small scale in most uncertain conditions. Reference has been made to ca'canny. I would suggest that, if hon. Members were engaged on a ship in a shipyard, and realised that when the work was done they were to be turned out into the streets, there is no man in this House
who would not go slow in order to make the work last longer. This is a point which leaders of industry must be prepared to face to this extent, that, so long as they neglect that fact, so long as they have that go-slow policy section, so long will they cry in vain for that sustained, constant effort, without which we cannot get that bulk of work which is the foundation of prosperity.
That is not only a natural request, but an imperative request, if our industry is to revive to any great degree. This question of a minimum wage forms a great part of it. A man has some desire to feel that he will receive at least not lower wages than those. It is not a great demand, and it ought not to be impossible to the industrial minds of our country, if we are to believe that they are the great captains of industry, to find a way of organising themselves so that that may become possible. I agree with the noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) that it ought not only to be the Government's policy to support this proposal, but that the Government should try to find out by every possible means what it is that stops something like national co-operation between capital and labour. The time has come when the employer whose mind is fixed solely on profits has to disappear, unless our industry is to sink into oblivion. The time has come when attention must be paid to such demands as that for a national minimum wage, and the right to have some say in the conduct of an industry. Men must not be treated merely as machines producing an article—who are to disappear out of the works and to have no further place in the employer's mind. I support this Resolution and reaffirm my regret that the Government has not seen its way to give it their support, and to add to the weighty arguments that can be advanced in support of it the great authority of their position.

Mr. HAYCOCK: This is the first time I have addressed this House, and I ask hon. Members for their indulgence. The first thing I would do is to remind the Noble Lady who represents the Sutton Division that we do not hate capitalists. We just hate capitalism. We do not hate capitalists any more than we hate fleas, and the only thing that we hate about fleas is the way they make their living. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ha, ha!"] Some hon. Members shout "ha, ha!" When
hon. Members opposite are discussing a very serious economic subject, I wish they would bring an honest mind to the problem. The Noble Lady has said that Socialism wherever tried has failed. I would like to know where it has been tried and has been a failure. It has been tried in this country and has not failed. Hon. Members opposite mention that word Socialism in the tone that they use in addressing youngsters, when they tell them, "The goblins will get you, boo!" I believe that this House is a Socialist experiment. The Post Office is a Socialist experiment, and even the maligned telephones, the parks and commons, and roads. Would you go back to private enterprise in any one of these things? [HON. MEMBERS: "Every time."] If hon. Members went to their constituents and told them that, they would not come back to this House. It has been suggested that we cannot afford to pay a minimum wage. If this country is poor, it cannot afford to have 1,200,000 people out of work, and it cannot afford to have capital standing idle, or to have managerial ability unemployed, and land breeding pheasants and rabbits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and aristocrats and Tories, just about as useful as the rabbits. [Interruption.] Yes, and we would trap you if we could.
All the minimum wage demand means, is that certain people will get the products of labour, and if we cannot afford that, then everybody ought to be working overtime—hon. Members opposite included. It applies as much to the duke as to the dustman. If we are poor everybody ought to be working hard; if we cannot afford this concession then everybody ought to be working overtime. Even from the point of view of self-interest, we cannot afford to under-pay people. If you want a revival in trade, you will have to raise wages. It is the only way that the home market can be restored. I suggest that production to-day is measured by the wages paid. Manufacturers will not produce unless they can find a market and manufacturers cannot find a market unless there is purchasing power, and if there is not purchasing power then goods will not be produced. In other words, the lack of purchasing power at home and abroad, is responsible for the slump in trade. If we had raised wages, 25 per cent. in 1920, when we were getting back to normal, and
producing more and more goods, instead of driving the wages standard down to an impossible level, then in place of having a slump which has meant ruin to thousands, and untold misery to millions, even capitalism might have delivered the goods. If we increased wages 10s. a week all round, what would happen? [HON. MEMBERS: "Make it £1."] I am only using the figure of 10s. for the sake of argument. I know if I mentioned 1s. it would suit the enthusiasm of some hon. Members much better, but I should like to make it more than that. If you gave the workers that extra purchasing power, then they would immediately buy goods. The workers might then have the purchasing power to buy boots for their children.
There are 5,000 children in Manchester to-day who cannot go to school because they have not boots. If the workers were enabled to buy boots, it would give employment to the boot makers in Leicester and Northampton, which would mean that these in turn would have additional purchasing power, and so the advantage would work all the way round. It is as simple to me as A, B, C, but some people evidently have not got to the C stage yet. They cannot see; there is something the matter with their mental retina. I may remind the House that when the miners' wives were wearing fur coats, and buying pianos, business was being done, and I commend to hon. Members that they should investigate this problem of purchasing power. There is no shortage of anything; the productivity of labour has gone up by leaps and bounds, so much so, that they have had to dump herrings back into the sea, and cut down rubber plantations, and restrict the output of rubber by one-half. Everywhere there is that restriction. It is "ca'canny" with a vengeance. There is not one industry in this country where the game of "ca'canny" is not being played in this way. It is not the question of a shortage of goods, but a shortage of purchasing power, and this is a simple proposal which will increase purchasing power and which will end in a blessing even to those who own the instruments of production, distribution and exchange.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I think I shall voice the opinions of most hon. Members when I congratulate the hon. Member who has I just sat down upon the enthusiasm with
which he has delivered his maiden speech. I sat through the greater part of this Debate, and I sat through a Debate on the same subject in March last year, and I agree with the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) that nothing has been said in either of these Debates to justify such a proposal as this to the House of Commons or the people of this country. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty said, if I may summarise his speech, that we had to choose between the inevitability of trade disputes and some such remedy as is indicated in this Bill. I do not put it higher than that, and I think that is a fair, if brief, summary of what the hon. Member said. Surely he is wrong. Does he imagine that if the solution of the great industrial problem of this country were so simple, that we here could pass a simple Bill decreeing that every man should have what we will term a living wage, without defining the exact figure, does he think there is a single man of great experience who would hesitate for one second to pass that Bill, if it were possible to reconcile that Measure with the prosperity of the trade and industry of our country which would enable our working people to live? Let hon. Members opposite in the Labour party come down to this House and say to us, "Our proposal is a minimum wage," and name whatever they like, £2 or £3 a week, and let them say: "We propose, having made that as a minimum wage, to say to you that our scheme of industry is as follows: We have now satisfied ourselves that with the machine we have brought into being, the spirit of our people is such that they will come forward and work the same under a minimum wage scheme as when they had to seek work and to work hard to maintain their job." If they can satisfy us that that will be so, if there is any means of satisfying the country, they will have done a great deal to remove the objection to a minimum wage.
If I may be allowed for a moment to turn to a slightly personal note, I think it is only fair to hon. Members opposite to say that I, like them, understand this problem from the workshop point of view. I think perhaps it is right that I should intrude this personal note, much as I regret doing so, but it is now 35 years
ago that I worked in an engineering workshop with a hammer and chisel and file, without a sou in the world. I had to work for my living, and I worked from six in the morning till six at night for anything that I possess to-day, and, much as I regret personal details of this kind, I think it is right that these things should be stated. I possess nothing to-day that has not come from the product of the hammer and the chisel and the file. I said this on Clydeside, outside the Fairfield shipbuilding yard gates, and those men knew me: "Was it better that I should be to-day working with a hammer and chisel and file, or that I should have pulled tens and hundreds of thousands, and to-day something like nine millions, out of different channels, and put that back, instead of being employed abroad, into the industries of this country, where now tens of thousands of men are earning a living? If I distributed every penny I possess, I do not believe it would amount to 2d. per week on the wages of these workers.
When hon. Members talk of a minimum wage, let them write this down, so far as I am concerned. Show me that you will produce at least as great a prosperity in this country as we have to-day, and I will vote for your minimum wage, but produce some evidence. Let me see that you are going to keep alive that energy, that force of character, that driving power of individual effort which is going to employ, and produce, and, as an hon. Member said, deliver the goods to the working men of this country, and there will be no greater advocate of a minimum wage than I should be. It is futile to come down here and say that the minimum wage will cure the evils which have been spoken of. What is that assertion supported by? Nothing has been put before us to show that the evils under which we are labouring to-day will come to an end. Not one word. Not one suggestion. Not one word has been uttered yet to commend the principle of the minimum wage either to this House of Commons or to the people of the country.

Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock), who has given us a very earnest address, more characterised by zeal than by logic, challenged us to give an illustration of a Socialist State. I take up that challenge.
At one time I happened to take a journey through the Highlands to a Socialist State, and I desire to give a brief description of my experiences. I will draw some conclusions as the result of those experiences. I refer to Fiji—

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I want to know whether it is in order on this Resolution to discuss the question of Socialism, or are we discussing the minimum wage? We do not need to go to Fiji.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are discussing the Resolution on the Paper.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am coming to that, but I want to give two experiences which were very illuminating to me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Had they the minimum wage?"] I am going to discuss a wage problem in Fiji. I took with me an interpreter and provisions for about a week. While resting in a Fijian hut a stalwart Fijian woman with a number of children and young people came in and made an attack upon my larder. She took out tins of sardines, and bread and butter, which she distributed amongst the children and the youths, and gave me the acknowledgment of a smile. I noted those provisions, which were to last for the week, growing small by degrees and beautifully less. I felt inclined to shout, "Police, police"; then I remembered that they were Socialists in Fiji and that these things belonged to her just as much as to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There are no private possessions in Fiji. Everything belongs to everyone, and no one produces anything except under the compulsion of the law.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will not attach that argument to the Motion before the House.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On another occasion during the journey my interpreter and I were devouring bread and jam, and a stalwart Fijian came in. We let him share our diet, and my guide proceeded to smother a piece of bread with jam for him. He opened his wide jaws and it disappeared as if into a vacuum. I then told my interpreter to ask this Fijian why he did not make jam. There were sugar factories close by and plenty of fruit growing wild, and firewood everywhere. He replied, "What's the use? I would not get it. There is no private ownership
in Fiji, and consequently this man would not make jam for others.
The lesson to be derived from that is, that if a man does not get the full reward of his labour, he will not work. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is Socialism."] There are thousands of men who do not get a minimum wage; and unless you give a man the full reward of his labour he will not give you the full reward of his wage. In Fiji they do not get what they produce, therefore they do not produce. 85,000 Fijians share what is produced, and there is in consequence nothing to share. I will leave Fiji for a moment and come to Russia. During the Socialistic régime there a peasant was asked why he did not grow wheat, and he replied, "What's the use? I would not get it." Unless he was going to get the wheat he grew, he would not grow wheat. The other day I saw a bricklayer laying a brick. He stopped in the process as I approached him.

Mr. GREENALL: On a point of Order, I wish to ask if an hon. Member of this House is to be allowed to continue speaking all night and not speak to the Motion before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member was coming to the Motion.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me was not following my argument. I asked this bricklayer how many bricks he was able to lay per day and why he did not lay that number, and he said, "What's the use? I would not get it." Unless he was going to get the full reward of all his labour laying bricks he was not going to do that amount of work. You cannot get men to toil unless they get the full reward of their toil. That is the complaint of the man who goes slow. You ask him, "Why do you go slow? and he says, "What's the use? I don't get it." Unless he gets all he produces or his full share of what he produces, he will not toil. That is how it is that Socialism is a sterilising system. You cannot possibly impose Socialism by law, by Act of Parliament. You cannot say, "Thou shalt toil, in order that other people will get the proceeds of your toil." You simply paralyse men. There is only one way, and that is to accept the capitalist system, accept private enterprise, accept private ownership; all these things must be accepted; and all you
can do, by law, is to limit the abuses of capital, by saying to a man, "Thou shalt not exploit thy labourer; thou shalt not sweat thy labourer; thou shalt not underpay; thou shalt not force him to live in insanitary conditions; thou shalt not force him to work in dangerous mines or unhealthy factories." All that you can do by law as to enact that men shall get the full reward of their labour. If you are going to force men to work for a living wage, instead of his fair share of what he produces, you should force capital to be content with a living dividend. A living wage is not the standard, but a limit below which you ought not to go; but a man should get his full share of all he produces. You can only do that by a third-party tribunal, having no interest in the result, and charged with the duty of getting at the facts. Those who cry for Socialism are
Like infants crying in the night,
And with no language but a cry.
They are talking the purest nonsense.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are you a Socialist?

Dr. CHAPPLE: No.

Mr. MACLEAN: Well, you are talking nonsense.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am contrasting the ideal of the Labour party, namely, Socialism, with another ideal, and that is third party tribunals charged with the duty of getting at the facts of industry and awarding the results equitably. If you get the facts and make them known, public opinion will be the arbitrator that will determine whether the distribution is just. I introduced into this Parliament 11 or 12 years ago the Adults Industrial Peace Bill. There is a great deal of misconception as to the meaning of arbitration. I believe that a minimum wage should be established, not by Act of Parliament, but by tribunals. It is impossible to determine a universal minimum wage. A living wage in one district might be a starvation wage in another. Rent, productivity, the cost of living—all of these must be taken into consideration, and the only way in which the issue can be determined is by the machinery of third-party tribunals. It cannot be done by hunting for Socialism, for some new system to be built up on the ruins of our
old system. Our method of progress should be an evolutionary method, and we must accept the things we have, moulding and altering them in order to meet the growing needs of our industrial community. There is only one way of determining as between two disputants who both claim the same thing, whether that thing is a wage or a dividend. On the one hand, the employés say that they are entitled to such-and-such a share of what they produce; capital, on the other hand, says that it is entitled to such-and-such a share of the things produced. Who is to determine this issue? It can only be done by third-party tribunals charged with the duty of getting at the facts, determining what is right, and then leaving it to public opinion to enforce the award.
I do not believe in compulsory arbitration, but I believe in tribunals whose function is to investigate and report, leaving it to public opinion, after that report, to ensure and enforce the recognition of the award. There are certain things which cannot be done by arbitration. You cannot enforce the acceptance of an award on either party, but an award must be given which contains, not only the judgment of the tribunal, but the facts. Then there must be a reasoned judgment on the facts, and the unerring force of public opinion must be trusted to to enforce the award.

Mr. COMPTON: rose, in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. TURNER-SAMUELS: It is very late to address the House on this question, but I should like to say one or two words. While the speeches of Members in this House are long and comic, the wages of people outside are short and tragic. The question has been asked, "Why do not the Government take this question up, instead of leaving it to a private Member?" It is wonderful what extraordinary things percolate through the mental channels of this great Assembly. This Motion happens to have been the creature of the Ballot, and all that the Government could do was what they have done, namely, merely to accept it and give it their blessing. It has also been asked, "Will men do a fair day's
work for a minimum wage?" But why should it be assumed that men would not work for a high wage when they have to work for a low wage? With that I resume my seat.

Mr. COMPTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the House is now ready to come to a decision.

Resolved,
That, in view of the practically universal acceptance of the principle that a living wage for all workers should be the first charge upon industry, and in view of the large measure of agreement with respect to the advisability of fixing legal minimum time rates of wages reached at the National Industrial Conference, this House urges the Government to proceed without delay with the Bill introduced by the Government of the day in 1919, constituting a Commission to inquire into and report upon legal minimum time rates of wages.

Mr. LEIF JONES: It is impossible to hear a word that is going on.

Mr. SPEAKER: The noise is all below the Gangway.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Brierley Hill District Gas Light Company, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I beg to move
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Marple Urban District Council, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be approved.
The Amendment on the Paper in the form in which it has been tabulated will be acceptable to the Board of Trade, provided the interested parties concerned will be willing to attend the inquiry before the Select Committee.

Mr. REMER: I beg to move to leave out the word "approved," and to add instead thereof the words
referred to a Select Committee of Four Members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report, which shall state whether, in their opinion, the Order should be approved with or without modifications or additions, setting out the modifications or additions, if any, which they propose, or should not be approved, and shall be laid before the House together with a copy of the Order showing the modifications and additions, if any, proposed by the Committee. That the proceedings of the Committee to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 151, and opponents of the Order shall be heard provided that a Statement of Objection has been deposited with the Board of Trade on or before the seventh day after the date of this Motion, but an opponent shall only be heard upon objections which have been distinctly specified in the Statement:
That any Statement so deposited shall be laid upon the Table of the House by the Board of Trade and shall stand referred to the Committee:
That if no Statement of Objection shall have been deposited within the specified time the reference to the Select Committee shall be discharged.
I have communicated with those people who have grievances under this Order and they have given me an undertaking that they will appear in accordance with the request of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HANNON: I have put my name to the Amendment, and as the Parliamentary Secretary has met us in an excellent spirit and is prepared to accept the Amendment, we are quite prepared to leave the matter as it stands. Large ratepayers in these small communities must have adequate protection for the supply and the necessary power requirements by gas companies, and as the hon. Gentleman has accepted the conditions of the Amendment we are quite prepared to refer it to a Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Marple Urban District Council, which was presented on the 15th January and published, be referred to a Select Committee of Four Members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report, which shall state whether, in their opinion, the Order should be approved with or without modifications or additions, setting out the modifications
or additions, if any, which they propose, or should not be approved, and shall be laid before the House together with a copy of the Order showing the modifications and additions, if any, proposed by the Committee. That the proceedings of the Committee to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 151, and opponents of the Order shall be heard provided that a Statement of Objection has been deposited with the Board of Trade on or before the seventh day after the date of this Motion, but an opponent shall only be heard upon objections which have been distinctly specified in the Statement;
That any Statement so deposited shall be laid upon the Table of the House by the Board of Trade and shall stand referred to the Committee;
That if no Statement of Objection shall have been deposited within the specified time the reference to the Select Committee shall be discharged.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Melksham Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 12th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the New-quay (Cornwall) Gas Company, Limited, which was prevented on the 15th January and published, be approved.
—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EVICTIONS (SCOTLAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise a question of the greatest importance and urgency as affecting Scotland, and particularly Glasgow. In the last Parliament, of which I was a member, I raised on numerous occasions the question of the wholesale evictions which ware taking place in the city of Glasgow. So acute did the position become that the Labour party who was then in opposition decided to ask its Executive to approach the Secretary for Scotland on the matter. Last year we raised the question on several occasions, and on each occasion we were always assured of sympathetic consideration, but that ended it; nothing further was done. To-day we have in the City of Glasgow hundreds of people summoned to a Sheriff's Court and who are decreed to leave their houses. 700 notices of ejection have been made this week. I have heard speakers in the last Parliament, and I believe in this, denouncing the conditions in Russia, and denouncing the conditions in many other countries, but bad as the conditions are in other countries very few people in any country are constantly living under the dread of eviction. In Glasgow there are 700 people this week alone against whom a decree of eviction has been given. These people are summoned to a Sheriff's Court, and very little, if any, opportunity is given to them to defend themselves or to state their case. Automatically the decree is granted. I would say to the Scottish Secretary that last year we were assured of sympathetic consideration. It may be said that this Government have not bad much time to tackle the problem. That is all very well, provided that we are well fed and well housed. If this condition of things happened to Englishmen or Scotsmen in some of our Colonies or in any other country, we would send an Army or the Navy in order to defend their rights, but because it is in Glasgow nothing is done. We are told to wait, I do hope, now that we have another Government, that we are not going to hear the usual tale of sympathy for these people. They have been living on hope for the past two or three years. These men volunteered during the War to defend their homes, and now they are being evicted from the homes that they went to defend. I hope the new Scottish Secretary, who is a working man himself, and who knows
something of the problems of the working classes, will not give us merely sympathy, but will say that it is a disgrace, a moral outrage, for any working man or his wife or family to be evicted from their home in a country where home ought to be sacred.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I join with my colleague in asking the Scottish Secretary to give us a much more sympathetic reply than was given by the late Government. The whole of the circumstances in Glasgow stand out not only as unique in the history of this, or any other country that calls itself civilised, but they are really tragic to those people who are most intimately concerned. My own constituency is one that is almost identical with the constituency represented by my colleague who has spoken and my other colleague here. I want to say that if the Labour party, which took up this question last year with the Conservative Government, is going to give us the usual stereotyped replies from permanent officials, as has been the custom in the past, the people of Glasgow and their representatives in this House are not going to take it any longer from any kind of Government. We have to have a definite statement, and we are not merely to be told that the circumstances of the country are abnormal. This is not to be made the excuse for a small section of the community holding the power in their hands to render homeless thousands of men and women and little children. This power must be taken out of their hands as it was taken out of their hands during the War. We were in an abnormal period then, and the Government of the time took that power out of the hands of men who had been wielding it unscrupulously in the first few months of the War. Evictions are going on not only in Gorbals, but in Govan, in Bridgeton, in Camlachie, in Springburn, in Shettleston, the division represented by the Minister of Health. From houses in all these constituencies families are being evicted. There is another point that makes it even more difficult for these people. Decrees have been issued for them to pay arrears of rent under the retrospective Act passed by the late Government, the most outstanding example of class legislation this House has seen in past years. These people who are paying their arrears of
rent do not have these arrears entered up in the proper manner. They are entered up as a sum total, including that particular months quota of rent. They are all slumped together. If the individual falls a month in arrear the factor immediately comes for a decree, not for the month they have been unable to pay, but for the whole of the arrears prior to the Act being passed. When decrees are being given in such cases, it is high time for men who represent these people in this House to tell our Government that we want definite statements as to the attitude that is to be adopted by the Government. We do not want to hear that they are considering this matter sympathetically, not that they will take it into consideration with officials when they retire from the Front Bench to-night, not that they are exploring every avenue to find a way out. We want to know what you are to do to prevent the people from being evicted. These people have waited too long, and there is not going to be, so far as we are concerned, one other family placed on the streets of Glasgow if we can prevent it.

Mr. MAXTON: I only want to add one word to what has been said in the attempt to persuade the Secretary for Scotland that this is a matter for very speedy and definite action. Apart from the actual ejection of the people from their homes on to the street, the terror that thousands of mothers are feeling in Glasgow because of the fear that they and their children will be removed on to the streets is, perhaps, a worse horror under our social system than the actual ejection. To-night we have just passed with complete unanimity the right of every individual to a minimum wage, but it was rightly said by several hon. Members who took part in the Debate that a minimum wage was a very difficult thing to assess, because it varied according to circumstances here and circumstances there. About 70 per cent. of the working-class population in Glasgow live in houses of one apartment or two apartments at the most. Surely at least we might recognise that as the irreducible minimum which cannot be taken away from them under any consideration. In these very miserable homes they cannot even feel secure under a Labour Government. Remember this, that while the Labour Government holds its position in
England perhaps a little by the tolerance of its political opponents, that is not the case in the city of Glasgow. In the city of Glasgow there is Socialist Government as far as representation in this House is concerned. The citizens of Glasgow have declared in favour of Socialism by a majority of two to one, and they rightly expect from us that all single and dual apartment houses in these miserable streets shall be secured to them for months on end without this terrible fear of the law courts and the police and the indignity of eviction in the face of all their neighbours.
I know that there are a whole lot of legal devices to block the way of doing something definite in regard to this matter. I know that there are many arguments against the human and the kindly and the decent thing being done, but I have seen in this House, in the relatively short time I have been in it, that, when there was keen anxiety on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to get something done which they wanted, it was marvellous how very quickly they could get round all the legal difficulties and the legal quibbles that might arise; and I put it to the Secretary for Scotland that he ought now—not months hence—to make some arrangement by which not a single citizen of that great city, which has rendered as much service in the building up of this nation as any other part of the nation, shall be rendered homeless by the operation of an evil social system. I would not like to use any threats, but those of us who have been right up against this terror, who have seen the effect of it on delicate, kindly-nurtured, motherly women, and have seen them collapse in the Law Courts through sheer terror when the to them, awful decree was given, now say to the Secretary for Scotland that if he cannot devise some constitutional method of keeping them in their homes, we will devise some method of keeping them in their homes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Either constitutional or otherwise.

Mr. MAXTON: We will find a way of keeping them in their homes, and it will not be to the credit of the "powers that be" in Britain if those steps have to be taken.

Mr. CLIMIE: I come from a different part of Scotland from hon. Members who have spoken, but I want to join with them in pressing upon the Secretary for Scotland the necessity of some emergency Measure being brought in immediately to put an end to evictions. I wonder if it would be possible to describe to hon. Members the position that exists in those towns where there are actually more families than there are numbers of houses available, so that poor people who have been evicted because they cannot meet their rent have no opportunity of getting houses. I have belonged to a local authority for many years, and not only that local authority but the local authorities in almost every part of Scotland are very sympathetic to the tenants, and would be anxious to work with the Government if some emergency Measure could be passed. Members of local authorities have been approached by their own people, people whom they know personally, recognising their honesty and their thrifty habits, but because of unemployment or some other cause over which they have no control they are being threatened with ejectment. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will be able to assure the House that some immediate legislation will be brought in to avoid evictions in Scotland.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): So far as this question is concerned, my hon. Friends know they are pushing an open door. I am as much interested in this question as it is possible for anyone to be. This is a matter which is not confined to Glasgow alone. Those of us who represent other constituencies have had to deal with this very difficult question in our own way in our own part of the country. As the law stands at the moment, what my hon. Friends have described can take place. It is in the discretion of the Sheriffs in the cases they have in their minds and have put before the House to-night to see what is to be done, and so far as the Secretary for Scotland is concerned, or any other Member of the Government, until the law is changed they have no power to interfere with the discretion of the sheriffs in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in the course of his remarks said that they would be met
by the argument that we have only been a short time in office. We have only been five weeks in office.

Mr. STEPHEN: Nearly six weeks!

Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure my hon. Friends, in regard to the question they have raised, that I have not been idle. I have already taken steps to get information from Glasgow as to the actual position. Only the other day my hon. Friends formed part of a deputation that came to see me regarding this very matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We want your reply.

Mr. ADAMSON: If my hon. Friend thinks that either he or myself can turn the world upside down in two or three days, I fear he is making a great mistake. What either he or I can undertake is to do our best to remedy the grievances complained of at the earliest possible moment. I have taken steps already to get all the information I can regarding the actual position in Glasgow. My hon. Friends know that, as a single member of the Government, I cannot pledge the Government here as to what definite line will be taken. What I can do, and what I have already agreed to do, is to get all the information available for my colleagues in the Government as to the actual state of matters, and if I think it is necessary, when I get the position fully before me, to advise them as strongly as I can as to the steps which are necessary to overcome the difficulties. They cannot ask me to say more than that. I am as fully alive as they are to the urgency of the case, and whatever I can do as a single individual I am prepared to do.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered the advisability of communicating with the Sheriffs of Scotland, reminding them that they have a discretion in this matter, and that, while waiting for the necessary statutory changes which my right hon. Friend is trying to get, the Sheriffs might exercise that discretion with a maximum of sympathy and generosity? I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he has communicated with the Sheriffs in any way,
as several of his predecessors in office did during the War period, and at other times?

Mr. MACLEAN: Instead of waiting until legislation has been passed through all its stages, is it not possible for the Government to pass an Order in Council prohibiting evictions in Scotland and all over the country?

Mr. FOOT: Does the information at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman bear out the earlier statement made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the evictions are proceeding at the rate of 700 a week?

Mr. MAXTON: Sheriffs' orders, not evictions!

Mr. FOOT: Is it true the orders ate being issued at the rate of 700 a week, and does the number of evictions correspond with the number of orders?

Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot tell the exact number of evictions that have taken place within recent months. The figures which I have beside me do not relate to recent months, but apply to last year. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), the law, which gives the Sheriffs the discretionary power, is continually before the Sheriffs. They are administering a law passed by this House, which puts that discretion in their hands. I do not think I can go further.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask for a reply to my question about the Order in Council?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed we have no power to issue an Order in Council to supersede the law.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has it not been done by previous Governments?

Mr. ADAMSON: As I am advised, that has been done under certain special circumstances, and I am advised that I cannot issue an Order in Council.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.